6 Second Language Acquisition

Dr. Neeru Tandon

epgp books

 

 

 

Content

  • Learning outcome
  • What is language acquisition?
  • Meaning of Second language acquisition
  • second language acquisition theory,
  • classroom implications of the theory
  • Oral communication development through acquisition activities,
  • Additional sources of input for acquisition
  • Language acquisition vs. language learning
  • The five stages of second language acquisition
  • Language Acquisition Device
  • Second Language Acquisition/Learning Theories
  • The factors that influence the acquisition of a second language
  • Second language acquisition (SLA) research findings
  • The Bad Language Learner
  • The Role of the First Language in Second Language Acquisition
  • Child Second Language Acquisition vs Adult second language acquisition

Learningoutcome 

 

The module is devoted to a brief statement of the theory and its implications for different aspects of second language acquisitions theory and practice. Acquisition and learning are defined and compared. Module presents the Monitor Model for adult second language performance.

 

What is language acquisition?

 

Acquiring language is considered as an involuntary process. It’s the act of adopting native language, without the methodical memorization of a word and its definition. With acquisition, there is no need to be aware of the learning process, because it takes place in its normal course. Therefore, learners need to be able to analyze speech to hear the beginning and ending of a word and to decipher the alphabet to see words on a page. ‘Language ‘input’ can then be turned into language ‘intake’ which is acquired and transferred from short to long-term memory. Without these decoding and parsing abilities, language acquisition may not take place for language learners in an immersion setting.’

 

ORIGIN: It is difficult to identify a precise date when the field of second language acquisition research began, but it does appear to have developed a great deal since the mid 1960s. Stephen Krashen, who made a sharp distinction between acquisition and learning in his 1982 theory of second language acquisition, popularized the term acquisition. He used learning to refer to the conscious aspects of the language learning process and acquisition to refer to the subconscious aspects.

 

‘’Natural communication–in which speakers are concerned not with the form of their utterances but with the messages they are conveying and understanding. Error correction and explicit teaching of rules are not relevant to language acquisition.

 

(Brown and Hanlon, 1970; Brown, Cazden, and Bellugi, 1973), but caretakers and native speakers can modify their utterances addressed to acquirers to help them understand, and these modifications are thought to help the acquisition process. (Snow and Ferguson, 1977).’’

 

Meaning of Second language acquisition 

 

‘’A language is ‘first’-and so is its acquisition-if no other language was acquired before; otherwise it is second. Thus, the mother tongue, which is acquired primarily by a child when his language cells are empty, is first language (L1), and the language, which is acquired / learnt in addition to the L1 is second language (L2).’’ (Klein, 1986:3).

 

Mostly the second language is the official language of the speaker’s country or state.

 

In this perspective, ‘second’ language is acquired following to the native language. It is also the case with the learning of third (L3) or fourth Language (L4).

 

Second language acquisition, or SLA, has two meanings. In a general sense it depicts learning a second language. More precisely, it is the name of the theory of the process by which we acquire – or pick up – a second language. This is mainly a subconscious process, which happens while we focus on communication. It can be compared with second language learning, which describes how formal language education helps us learn language through more conscious processes. Second language empowers the speakers for larger involvement in society.

 

Foreign Vs Second Language

 

The phrase ‘foreign language’ is used to denote a language that is learnt through instruction where it is not used. ‘Second language’, on the other hand, is one that becomes another tool of communication along with the first language. It is typically acquired / learnt in a social environment in which it is actually spoken or in coached settings.

 

Second Language Acquisition Theory 

 

Theories of SLA talk about the acquisition/learning process of L2 in different ways. Some of the important theories are short listed as follows.

 

Acculturation Theory 

 

According to the acculturation theory, SLA is fixed by the degree of social and psychological distance between the learner and the target language culture. Motivation, and ego boundaries play major role in the process of acquiring/learning of L2.

 

Contrastive Theory 

 

The contrastive theory claims that the acquisition of a Second language is largely determined by the structure of an earlier acquired language. Those structures, of the Second language that coincide with corresponding structure of the first language are assimilated with great ease as a result of ‘positive transfer’. Contrasting structures on the other hand give rise to errors as a result of ‘negative transfer’ or ‘interference’.

 

Identity theory is contrasted with the contrastive theory, which asserts that the acquisition or availability of language has little or no influence on the acquisition of another language. Thus, in other words, first and second language learning are basically one and the same process governed by the same law.

 

Monitor Theory 

 

Monitor Theory assumes that adults have two independent systems for developing ability in second languages, subconscious language acquisition and conscious language learning, and that these systems are interrelated in a definite way. Subconscious acquisition appears to be far more important. The vital point of the theory is that ‘learning’ in this sense is always caused through a ‘monitor’, or an effort on the part of the learner to control his language output and to self-correct it whenever necessary. We can enumerate three conditions that decide the effective use of monitor.

Classroom implications of the theory

 

Implications for the language classroom include the ideas that the teacher can create contexts for communication which facilitate acquisition, that there is a natural order of acquisition of language, that there are affective filters which obstruct acquisition, especially for adults, and that coherent input is very important.

 

Oral communication development through acquisition activities

 

‘Acquirers need not have a conscious awareness of the “rules” they possess, and may self correct only on the basis of a “feel” for grammaticality conscious language learning, on the other hand, is thought to be helped a great deal by error correction and the presentation of explicit rules (Krashen and Seliger,1975).’

 

Chesterfield & Chesterfield (1985) identified a natural order of strategies in the development of a second language.

  1.  Repetition (imitating a word or structure);
  2.  Memorization (recalling songs, rhymes or sequences by rote);
  3.  Formulaic expressions (words or phrases that function as units i.e. greetings);
  4.  Verbal attention getters (language that initiates interaction);
  5.  Answering in unison (responding with others);
  6.  Talking to self (engaging in internal monologue);
  7.  Elaboration (information beyond what is necessary);
  8.  Anticipatory answers (completing another’s phrase or statement);
  9.  Monitoring (self-correcting errors);
  10.  Appeal for assistance (asking someone for help);
  11.  Request for clarification (asking the speaker to explain or repeat); and
  12.  Role-playing (interacting with another by taking on roles).

Language acquisition vs. language learning

 

Acquisition vs. learning

 

Ellis (1986:6) says that ‘second language acquisition is the subconscious or conscious process by which a language, other then the mother tongue, is learnt in a natural or a tutored setting. It covers the development of phonology, lexis, grammar and pragmatic knowledge.’ Some language acquisition will happen as a by-product (posters on the classroom walls, the teacher’s repeated use of a certain phrase) but most language will be learned through memorization and direct study. There are different opinions about the acquisition of language and learning of language. Krashen’s (1981) opinion is one among them. He distinguishes between ‘acquisition’ and ‘learning’. Acquisition refers to the subconscious process of picking up a language through exposure and the learning refers to the conscious process of studying it. According to this view, if a language is internalized subconsciously through exposure in a natural environment  the process becomes acquisition. In contrast, if a language is internalized consciously through instruction in classroom settings the process becomes learning. When a learner internalizes a language subconsciously, he may not have grammatical competence but he may have communicative competence in a particular context.

Language learning, on the other hand, is not communicative. It is the result of direct instruction in the rules of language. And it certainly is not an age-appropriate activity for your young learners. In language learning, students have conscious knowledge of the new language and can talk about that knowledge. They can fill in the blanks on a grammar page. Research has shown, however, that knowing grammar rules does not necessarily result in good speaking or writing. A student who has memorized the rules of the language may be able to succeed on a standardized test of English language but may not be able to speak or write correctly.

 

Understanding the language acquisition vs. language learning distinction can help to understand tools and language programs clearly. The best approach is a balanced one. A good language teacher knows this and always ensures the material you work with is logical input, which makes language acquisition more possible. In this way one can acquire new words and grammar from the logical input.

 

‘Second language acquisition’ (SLA) is used in the applied linguistic studies to refer to the internalization process of an L2 through exposure in a social environment where the real communication takes place; where the learner focuses on only meaning not the structure of L2.

 

 The Five Stages of Second Language Acquisition

 

The term ‘process’ which is common in acquisition studies is used in two related meanings. It refers both to the sequence of development and to the factors that determine how acquisition takes place.

 

First language acquisition occurs when the learner-usually a child-has been without a language so far and now acquires one (Klein, 1986:4). Hence, the acquiring process  of language takes place, subconsciously in a social environment, in several stages.

 

Every child learns to talk and this learning process happens in stages—first understanding, then one-word expressions, then two-word phrases, and so on. Students learning a second language move through five probable stages: (Krashen & Terrell, 1983).

  1. Preproduction
  2. Early Production
  3. Speech Emergence
  4. Intermediate Fluency
  5. and Advanced Fluency

Level of formal education, family background, and length of time spent in learning are the factors that affect the second language acquisition. Proper instructions should be given at every stage of language acquisition.

 

Teachers should ask repeated questions throughout their lessons, as doing so lets English Language Learners practice their new language and teachers could evaluate the understanding level of ELLs. Of course, questions should be tailored to each ELL’s level of second language acquisition. By knowing the stages of language acquisition and stage-appropriate questions, Teachers can involve students at the appropriate level of discussion. Asking the tiered questions that accompany the stages of acquisition is one way to help students move to the next stage. To ensure that the student is being challenged and pushed to the next level, it is important to once in a while ask questions from the next level as well. Although there may be an approximate  time  frame  for each  stage of language acquisition,  the  length  of time students spend at each level will be as varied as the students themselves.

The Role of the First Language in Second Language Acquisition

 

Often this question appears whether first language “interference” is a tool for SLA or it is “getting in the way” of second language skills. In terms of the Monitor performance model, interference is the result of the use of the first language as a speech originator: first language competence may replace acquired second language competence in the performance model. For many years, it had been presumed that the only major source of syntactic errors in adult second language performance was the performer’s first language (Lado, 1957). Studies also show that the first-language- influenced errors are there in second language performance as well.

 

First language influence may thus be an indicator of low acquisition, or the result of the performer attempting to produce before having acquired enough of the target language. It is, not surprisingly, found most often in foreign language, as opposed to second language situations, where opportunities for real communication are fewer, and is only rarely seen in “natural” child second language acquisition.

 

’Children are usually allowed to go through a “silent period”, during which they build up acquired competence through active listening. Several scholars have suggested that providing such a silent period for all performers in second language acquisition would be beneficial.

 

First language influence can thus be considered as unnatural. One could theoretically produce sentences in a second language without any acquisition: the first language surface structure can be used with second language content lexicon incorporated.

 

The Factors That Influence The Acquisition Of A SecondLanguage

 

Some students learn a new language more quickly and easily than others. This simple fact is known by all who have themselves learned a second language or taught those who are using their second language in school. Clearly, some language learners are successful by virtue of their sheer determination, hard work and persistence. However there are other crucial factors influencing success that is largely beyond the control of the learner. These factors can be broadly categorized as internal and external. It is their complex interplay that determines the speed and facility with which the new language is learned.

Internal factors

 

The individual language learner carries Internal factors with him or her to the exact learning situation.

  • Age: Second language acquisition is influenced by the age of the learner. Inspired adult learners can learn easily, but it is not easy for them to accomplish native-speaker like pronunciation and intonation.
  • Personality: Introverted or concerned learners usually make slower progress, particularly in the development of oral skills. Many students will not care about mistakes and more and more practice by them will make them perfect gradually.
  • Self-Motivation (intrinsic): intrinsic and extrinsic motivations are also significant factors for second language acquisition. ESL students who are motivated to learn the second language for impressing their respective partners, for their social status, to take admission in any prestigious university or for their jobs are likely to make better efforts and thus better progress.
  • Experiences: Second Language Learners who have been exposed to various languages and cultures are seen has a stronger base for learning a further language than the student who hasn’t had such experiences.
  • Cognition: In general, it seems that students with greater intellectual abilities will make the faster progress. Some linguists believe that there is a specific, innate language learning ability that is stronger in some students than in others.
  • Native language: Students who are learning a second language from the language family of their first language are generally quick learners because of their native language proficiency they pick up another language within no time.

External factors

 

External factors are those that characterize the particular language-learning situation.

  • Curriculum: If language learning is an essential part of their curriculum, then students devote much time and pay more attention to language learning. So ESL students comparatively do better in the field.
  • Instruction: Much depends upon the quality of instructors because some students do better if they get better and qualified instructors, who are dedicated towards learning and teaching.
  • Culture and status: There is some evidence that students in situations where their own culture has a lower status than that of the culture in which they are learning the language make slower progress.
  • Stimulus (extrinsic): Students who are given continuing, appropriate inspiration to learn by their teachers and parents will generally do better than those who aren’t.
  • Access to native speakers: The opportunity to interact with native speakers both within and outside of the classroom is a significant advantage. Native speakers are linguistic models and can provide appropriate feedback. Clearly, second-language learners who have no such exposure are not that successful, particularly in the oral/aural aspects of language acquisition.

Second language acquisition (SLA) research findings

 

According to the major findings of SLA research

  1. Second language acquisition is highly systematic
  2. Second language acquisition is highly variable

Both these findings are different yet true. They are related to Route and the Rate (speed of learning L2 ) of the learning process or the outcome of the learning process (how proficient learners become), or both. We all know that both speed of learning and range of outcomes are highly flexible from learner to learner.

2. Systematicity

 

‘A substantial part of the SLA research community has concentrated on documenting and trying to understand the discovery that language learning is highly systematic. A defining moment for the field was in the late 70s / early 80s when it became evident that L2 learners follow a fairly rigid developmental route, in the same way as children learning their L1 do, and not dissimilar in many respects from the L1 route.

 

The Bad Language Learner 

 

In SLA we come across two terms “good language learner” and ‘bad language learner’. Good language learner in this field indicates towards someone who is first and foremost an acquirer, and who may also be an “optimal Monitor user”.

 

There seem to be three sorts of bad language learners. The very worst has neither Acquisition nor learning going for him. This might be the result of lack of interest in the target language and its speakers and/or self-consciousness, high anxiety, etc.) as well as low aptitude or interest in grammar.

 

Two other varieties of bad language learners have been discussed elsewhere  (Krashen, 1978a; Chapter 1, this volume): the underuser and the overuser.This is quite close to Carroll’s: “Persons with limited sensitivity to grammar may be better off in courses that de-emphasize grammar and concentrate on exposing the learner to large amounts of the second language in actual use. Nevertheless, many of them will find it profitable to note carefully, and to try to correct, the errors they make in second language utterances. Others, as they use the language more and more, may find it satisfactory simply to wait until a natural correction process takes over, somewhat the way children learn to speak their native language in increasing conformity with adult norms” .

 

Language Acquisition Device(LAD) 

 

Chomsky’s (1959, 1965, 1975) scheme is that the acquisition of the structure of language hangs upon a distinctive identification method. He calls it as language acquisition device (LAD). That is, in effect programmed ‘to accept its surface structure of any natural language as input and to recognize its deep structures by virtue of the kinship of all natural language to a universal deep structure that human beings know innately.’

 

 Child Second Language Acquisition vs Adult second language acquisition

 

The impression one gets from the literature on child second language acquisition is that the second language performer relies far more on routines and patterns than does the first language acquirer. In discussing why the child second language acquirer may use routines and patterns more than the first language acquirer, Hakuta emphasizes the older child’s greater need to communicate: “… in the case of the second language learner, we would expect that, with advanced semantic development and yet no form with which to express such thoughts, the need to learn the various linguistic structures of the target language is especially acute.” Until the structure of the language is acquired, it is conceivable, Hakuta suggests, that “the learner will employ a strategy which ‘tunes in’ on regular, patterned segments of speech, and employs them without knowledge of their underlying structure, but with the knowledge as to which particular situations call for what patterns. They may be thought of as props which temporarily Relating Theory and Practice In Adult Second language Acquisition give support until a firmer foundation is built…”.

 

The popular view that children have an advantage in learning a second language has substantial support in research, although it is not unchallenged. One approach proposes that the child’ fertile and flexible brain possesses a unique capacity for language that the adult no longer has. Another approach accepts that language acquisition is naturally untiring and ‘depends on some necessary neurological factors and unspecified minimum linguistic input during a critical period of brain lateralization of language specialization. Pragmatics and semantics may also provide some explanation for early sensitivity, including the idea that the communicative demands on adults are greater than they are for children.’

Children acquire language through a subconscious process during which they are unaware of grammatical rules. This is similar to the way they acquire their first language. They get a feel for what is and what isn’t correct. In order to acquire language, the learner needs a source of natural communication. The emphasis is on the text of the communication and not on the form. Young students who are in the process of acquiring English get plenty of “on the jobs” practice. They readily acquire the language to communicate with classmates. Adults, in contrast, when trying to learn a second language, are usually presented with a myriad of grammar rules and patterns to master from the very first class.

  1. Adults and adolescents can ‘acquire’ a language.The learner creates a systematic inter language that is often characterized by the same systematic errors as those of a child learning the first language, as well as others that appear to be based on the learner’s own native language.
  2. There are predictable sequences in acquisition so that certain structures have to be acquired before others can be integrated
  3. Practice does not make perfect
  4. Knowing a language-rule does not mean one will be able to use it in communicative interaction
  5. Isolated explicit error correction is usually ineffective in changing language behaviour
  6. For most adult learners, acquisition stops before the learner has achieved native- like proficiency
  7. One cannot achieve native-like command of a second language in a few hours a day or some days.
  8. The learner task is enormous because language is enormously complex
  9. A learner’s ability to understand language in a meaningful context exceeds his or her ability to comprehend de contextualized language and to produce language of comparable complexity and accuracy.

Conditions:

  • Must explain innate factors
  • Must consider the influence of environmental or contextual factors
  • Should explain differences according to age
  • Cannot only consider affective factors for learning
  • Considers learning as both a conscious and subconscious process
  • Considers that learning is something else besides comprehensible input
  • Should include cognitive factors
  • Recognizes the ‘U’ shape of learning.

Factors Involved In 2nd Language Acquisition:

  1. psychological =Intellectual processing, memory, motor skills.
  2. social =explication vs. induction Explication
  3. Rote Memorization: The simple memorization where words, phrases and sentences are remembered just as they are.
  4. Attitude : According to Savignon (1976) “Attitude is the single most important factor in second language learning”.
  5. The learner’s attitude

LANGUAGE TRANSFER

  • Where the two languages were identical, learning could take place through positive transfer to the native-language
  • Where the two languages were different, learning difficulty arose and errors occurred resulting from negative
  • Chomsky (1959) set in motion a re-evaluation of many of the behaviorists claims. This re-evaluation included area such as:
  • the dangers of extrapolating from laboratory studies of animal behavior to the language behavior of humans were pointed out;
  • the terms stimulus and response were exposed as vacuous where language behavior was concerned;
  • analogy could not account for the language user’s ability to generate totally novel utterances; and
  • studies of children acquiring their L1 showed that parents rarely corrected their children’s linguistic errors, thus casting doubt on the importance of reinforcement in language
  • All this led to the reconsideration of the role of L1 in L2

SUMMING UP :

 

Second language acquisition or second language learning is the process by which people learn a second language or an additional language. SLA can also incorporate the learning of third, fourth as well as heritage language learning. It refers to what learners do and not what teachers do. Most language teaching programs divide up into the “four skills”, speaking, listening, reading, and writing. Teachers often complain that such divisions of individual skills are artificial. They find it impossible to focus on just one skill and ignore the others.

 

Oller, in a series of studies, reports that “it is difficult to find any unique meaningful variance in all of the diverse language tests that have been studied and which can be attributed to any one of the traditionally recognized four skills”.

 

In other words, there is no clear evidence for a “reading” factor, a “speaking” factor, etc. Also, there is no evidence for an oral modality factor, as opposed to a written modality factor. Our research on “Monitor Theory” is also consistent with the idea that the four skills are not the primary division: Oller (1976a) has noted that error analysis “reveals a high degree of correspondence between the structures generated in widely different tasks, e.g. translation, oral imitation, and spontaneous speech”.

you can view video on Second Language Acquisition
  • A.Khan : ‘Teaching of English as a Second Language’. Vista International Publishing House, Delhi.
  • Anderson, N. (2002). The role of metacognition in second language teaching and learning. Washington, D.C., ERIC. ED 463 659.
  • Blake, R. (2000). Computer mediated communication: A window on L2 Spanish interlanguage.Language Learning and Technology, 4(1), 120 – 136.
  • Boyle, R. (1995). Language Teaching at a Distance: From the first generation model to the third.System, 23(1), 283 – 294.
  • Chapelle, C. (1997). Call in  the  Year  2000:  Still  in  search  of  research  paradigms? Language Learning & Technology, 1(1), 19 – 43.
  • Creed, C., and Koul, B. (1993). Language issues in English medium, tertiary level, DE courses for ESL learners. Language Issues in Distance Education (p. 48 – 52). England, United Kingdom: Dunford Seminar Report. ERIC Document #: ED370 406.
  • Díaz-Rico, L. T., and Weed, K. Z. (2002). The cross- cultural, language, and academic development handbook. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
  • Dixon-Krauss, L. (1996). Vygotsky in the Classroom: Mediated literacy instruction and assessment. White Plains, NY: Longman.
  • Gavelek, J. R., and Raphael, T. E. (1996). Changing Talk about Text: New roles for teachers and students. Language Arts, 73, 182 – 192.
  • Gonzalez, J. M. (1997). Technology in Education: Time to face the monster. IDRA Newsletter, 24(5), 8 – 14.
  • Graddol, D. (1993). Language issues in Distance education at tertiary level. Language Issues in Distance Education (p. 23 – 25). England, United Kingdom: Dunford Seminar Report. ERIC Document #: ED370406.
  • Hatch, E. (1978). Discourse analysis and second language acquisition. In E. Hatch (Ed.) Second language acquisition: A book of readings (p. 401-435). Rowley: MA.: Newbury House.
  • Krashen, S. (1985). The Input Hypothesis. Beverly Hills, CA.: Laredo Publishing Company.
  • Krashen, S. (1994). The input hypothesis and its rivals. In N. Ellis (Ed.) Implicit and explicit learning of languages. (p. 45-77). London: Academic Press.
  • Krashen, S. (1996). Under Attack: The case against bilingual education. Culver City, CA.: Language Education Associates.
  • Lambert, R. D. (1991). Distance education and foreign languages. Washington, D.C.: Johns Hopkins University, National Foreign Language Center. ERIC Document #: ED 334 833.
  • Lamy, M., and Goodfellow, R. (1999). “Reflective conversation” in the virtual language classroom.Language Learning & Technology, 2(2), 43 – 61.
  • Lapp, S. I. (2000). Using email dialogue to generate communication in an English as a second language classroom. The Australian Journal of Language Literacy, 23(1) 50– 62.
  • Lightbrown, P. M., and Spada, N. (1999). How languages are learned. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Long, M. H. (1985). Input and second language acquisition theory. In S. Gass and C. Madden (Eds.)Input in second language acquisition (p. 377-393). Rowley, MA.: Newbury House.
  • Moore, M., and Kearsley, G. (1996). Distance Education: A systems view. Belmont, CA.: Wadsworth.
  • Passerini, K., and Granger, M.J. (2000) A developmental model for distance learning using the Internet. Computers & Education, 34(1), 1 – 15.
  • Pica, T. (1996). Second Language Learning Through Interaction: Multiple perspectives. Working Papers in Educational Linguistics, 12(1), 1 – 22.
  • Pica, T. (1994). Research on Negotiation: What does it reveal about second language learning conditions, processes, and outcomes? Language Learning, 44(3), 493 – 527.
  • Savard, M., Mitchell, .N., Abrami, P., and Corso, M. (1995). Learning together at a distance. Canadian Journal of Educational Communication, 24(2), 117 – 131.
  • Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In. G. Cook and G. Seidhofer (Eds.) Principles and practices in applied linguistics: Studies in honor of H. G. Widdowson (p. 125-144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Vygotsky, L. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.
  • Warschauer, M. (1998). Interaction, negotiation, and computer-mediated learning. In M. Clay (Ed.)Practical applications of educational technology in language learning. Lyon, France: National Institute of Applied Sciences.
  • Willis, J. W., Stephens, E. C., and Matthew, K. I. (1996). Technology, reading, and language arts. Needham Heights, MA.: Allyn & Bacon.