To evaluate my assignment click here
Name: Dharaba Rayjada
Semester: 3
Roll No.: 8
Paper No.: 12 English Language Teaching – 1
Enrolment No.: 2069108420180045
Email id: dharabarayjada021@gmail.com
Year: 2017-19
Submitted to: Department of English, Maharaja Krishnkumarsinhji Bhavnagar University.
Second Language Acquisition (SLA)
After coming in this world, language will become part of our existence. Without language we can not think of living. The language which we learn from our childhood is called our mother tongue and our first language. Second language is one which we choose to learn in school or we learn it after acquiring first language. The term “Second Language Acquisition (SLA)” refers to the processes through which someone acquires one or more second or foreign language. It can not be denied that acquiring a mother tongue and second language has difference. So SLA ponder upon those difference which occurs in the process of learning second language.
There is also a difference between acquiring and learning. Acquiring happens by having conversation with native speakers, while learning is a conscious process which take place in school or collages. Acquiring a language means we focus on meaningful conversation while learning language focuses on structure of language, grammar and other rules. SLA researchers also focuses on these things like weather the language came from naturalistic contexts or classroom settings. It also focuses on weather it is product, which means the language is acquired naturally, or it is process, which means language is learned through pattern follows by schools.
Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis (CA Hypothesis)
The term SLA was immerged from the comparative study of languages. It is believed that learner’s first language high and important influence on learner’s second language, from that CA Hypothesis has taken place. This hypothesis gave two terms. ‘Positive transfer’ and ‘Negative transfer’. Positive transfer refer to the language which has similar rules and which helps learner to acquire second language easily. Those language which shares same origins. As it is said earlier that learner’s first language has impact on their second language, so, while learning second language learner has rules of first language and when they apply it, it is similar and it helps learner to learn the language easily, this is called positive transfer.
Negative transfer refers to the language which has different origins and different rules. As first language is very important part of human’s life and it affects everywhere. Same like positive transfer the first language of learner interfere in learning second language also but this time both language has different rules. Now this interfere of first language in second language will harm the acquiring process of learner. This interfere is called negative transfer.
Product – Oriented Research
During the early 1970s a series of empirical investigations into learner language were carried out which became known as the 'morpheme order' studies. Morpheme means minimum meaningful language unit. These studies focuses on weather the grammar of target language has been acquired naturally or not.
Dulay and Burt (1973, 1974) both are the principal architects of the Morpheme order studies, they came up with the research like, the errors which learner does while acquiring a second language are same as they done while acquiring a first language. They believe that the process of acquiring any language is same, by listening. As they acquired a first language from their parents, same way they will acquire a second language. So the mistakes learners do in structure of language are as for both the languages. By telling this both are rejecting the CA Hypothesis, which says that, learners’ structure of first language is interfere in learning a second language. Dulay and Burt has rejected the CA Hypothesis and has given a new one called “L2 acquisition equals L1 acquisition”.
“Briefly the CA hypothesis states that while the child is learning an L2, he [or she] will tend to use his native language structures in his L2 speech, and where structures in his LI and his L2differ he will goof. For example, in Spanish, subjects are often dropped, so Spanish children learning English should tend to say Wants Miss Jones for He wants Miss Jones.
The 'L2 acquisition equals LI acquisition' hypothesis holds that children actively organize the L2 speech that they hear and make generalizations about its structure as children learning their LI do. Therefore the goofs expected in any particular L2 production would be similar to those made by children learning the same language as their LI. For example Jose want Miss Jones would be expected since LI acquisition studies have shown that childrengenerally omit functors, in this case the -s inflection for third person singular present indicative.” (Dulay and Burt 1974: 96)
The morpheme order studies indicated a predetermined order of acquisition for certain grammatical morpheme. However this research shows that this order can not be changed by instructions. Though researchers are failed to answer that why some morpheme unites are acquired earlier than others.
During the 1980s, however, a number of researchers studying the acquisition of German and English proposed an interested explanation for the disparity between instruction and acquisition based on speech-processing constraints (Pienemann 1989). They argued that every item of grammar should be structured according to its complexity. So learner will goes one step ahead every time. Though it has made for short term memory, for longer period this will not work. We can see that some items can be memorized easily while other takes time. This can be difficult during the speech process, because while speaking these all grammatical things should be in working memory and while speaking it is very hard to concentrate on every structure as speaking is very fast process, so, at that time one can only focus on one part of speech. They say that every grammatical unit should have one step ahead from learners’ capability and this is called “Teachability Hypothesis”. However to know the progress every item should be structurally graded.
The researchers who has put this idea in practice are vigorously reject the concepts of grammar structure and teachability hypothesis. They says that grammar should be taught but only when learner is mentally ready to acquire a next level. Without learner’s readiness the grammar can not be acquired. So they says that the structure and complexity of grammar should be according to the need of learners.
In the 1980s Stephen Krashen was the best known figure in the SLA field. He has given the hypothesis on despairing between learning and acquiring grammatical items. He has given two mental process, 1) Conscious Learning 2) Subconscious Acquiring.
Conscious Learning focuses on grammatical rules and make learner memorize it. While Subconscious Acquiring focuses on acquiring of grammatical rules at subconscious level. He says that both the processes are very separate from each other. Language is mean of communication, so he says language acquisition means comprehension. If learning can comprehend the structure and meaning of it, it means that learner has move one step ahead in acquiring particular language. This is called “Comprehensible Input Hypothesis”.
While putting Krashen’s hypothesis in practical practice researchers has argued that learners should be provided by very natural input. Especially extensive listening can be provide great help. In early stage when learner don’t has to articulate the language at that time listening can help in reducing the errors in structure and pronunciations. Though they emphasizing on listening but many of them are still agree with Krashen’s hypothesis.
Krashen's comprehensible input hypothesis was challenged by Swain (1985), who investigated immersion programmes in Canada in which children receive content instruction in a language other than their L1. Like those whose native language is English they got instructions in other language like French or Spanish and vice versa. What happen is students get very high amount of comprehensible input. Though their L2 is not so much developed as per the need of comprehensible input hypothesis. So according to Swain’s research, in classroom teachers are only speaking more and students are very little. So she gave an alternative hypothesis, “Comprehensible Output Hypothesis”. Which suggest that to acquire a language articulation of language is necessary.
Process – Oriented Research
This research is focused on the process through which learner passes. It focuses on the tasks which learner performs to acquire a language. It ponder upon the classroom activities and other effort which are put to input the data of target language. It focuses on products or outcomes of the process. Long (1981) has said that two way communication generate significantly modified interactions than one way communications. Two way communications means, a talk where mostly everyone is participating and everyone has something unique to share, like group discussions. While on the other hand one way communication means, only one person is involved in speaking others are just listeners, for example, the person is giving speech.
Similarly Daughty and Pica (1986) are also found that required information sharing talks can generate modified interaction than the talks where sharing information is optional. The term “Modified Interaction” means the use of language which has done by the speaker to make the language comprehensible to the speakers. This research was strongly influenced by Krashen's hypothesis that comprehensible input was a necessary and sufficient condition for SLA. The aim of language is to communicate and if it will happen in learners’ targeted language than this is what matters. The meaning of message should be understood.
The process oriented research work of Long has grown the importance of development of task based language teaching. What difference this task based language teaching wants to make is they want syllabus not according to linguistics items but it should be upon tasks. SLA research has informed the work of syllabus designers, methodologists and materials writers by suggesting that the task which encourage learners to negotiate meanings is healthy sign for acquisition. The growing importance of task in syllabus of all kinds is suggesting the growing link between process oriented research and classroom pedagogy.
Current and Future Trends and Directions
Current SLA research progress can be describe in only one word: Complex. Researchers are now come to know that language acquisition has social, interpersonal and even psychological dimensions. These all things affect learners while acquiring a new language. They come to know that input and output both are important. We can not focus only on one process, if there is input then and then output will come, so only focusing on one will not help. They come to know that form and meaning can not be separated. Every form has meaning and every meaning follows one form. And at last they come to know that acquiring or learning is a organic process not the linear process. It will take time and happen on its own it will not work under orders.
In a recent study, Martyn (1996) investigated the influence of certain task characteristics on the negotiation of meaning in small group work, looking at the following variables:
• interaction relationship: whether one person holds all of the information required to complete the task, whether each participant holds a portion of the information, or whether the information is shared;
• interaction requirement: whether or not the information must be shared;
• goal orientation: whether the task goal is convergent or divergent;
• outcome options: whether there is only a single correct outcome, or whether more than one
outcome is possible.
This researches are showing the complexity of learning environment. It also shows that how difficult of almost impossible it is to separate psychological and linguistics factors from social and interpersonal ones.
For future the major challenge is for curriculum designers, materials writers and classroom practitioners, who accepted the task based learning but they are in search to make the task with needed instructions for learners. This is a challenge because this is going to be for beginners in foreign language. The researchers also have to think on till which extent they can allow the task based learning. Experiments are under way to establish the appropriate balance and 'mix' between tasks which have non-linguistic outcomes and exercises which have linguistic outcomes.
The researchers are thinking that organic process of acquiring a language is best. We can not separate its originality and we also cannot learn anything without understanding it in particular context. The organic metaphor sees SLA more as a growing garden than building a wall. Learners do not learn one thing perfectly one item at a time, but learn numerous things simultaneously and imperfectly.
Generalizations
In general we can say that SLA provides an understanding of what language is, what learning is and if we talk about in context of classroom then what teaching is? Secondly if we understand that how children acquire their first language then it can throw light to understand the structure of acquiring a second language. Third is most important. It is to know that there is a vast difference between learners acquiring a new language. All have different level of understanding and different methods. What works for first one may not work for second one. So it is necessary to know that there is difference in acquiring a language among learners. Last one is the way learners view themselves in communication, it will affect the quantity and quality of second language learning. The way learners analyze and grade them selves will affect them at psychological level. In short their confidence level affect their learning.
Claims
It is claimed that adults acquire a second language easily. Well my vote is not going to this claim as learning a whole new language is difficult for adults also and I think it creates more hurdles to adults as their mind has grown up in a structure of particular language and to learn new language it is necessary to adjust another structure in mind so I don’t think it is easy for adults also. Second claim is that practice does not make language perfect. We have this illusion in mind that same like other things practice also can make language perfect which is not true. Practice does not make language perfect. To make your language perfect you have to put it in a practice and should have to create an atmosphere where your language can grow. Only practicing language will not help.
Third claim is that knowing a language rule does not mean that one will able to use it in communications. This is 100% true. Rules does not help in articulating language and the biggest example is your native language. When we started speaking our native language we don’t know the rules of our language then even we are articulating it and then after we have learned the rules. So it is clear that knowing language rule does not make any difference. Next is one can not achieve native like command in short period of time. To articulate a perfect and meaningful language it needs atmosphere. Without it one will not able to get command over language.
Next is comprehension of text is depended on learners ability to understand language. It is totally one learners. The way they understand language they will comprehend meaning from the same level. Then learner already has a language in their brain. They are now trying to add another language in their system so it will take time and as I am repeatedly referring that atmosphere is very important element for acquiring any language.
Conclusion
While summing up we can say that Nunan has shown the both side of SLA coin, like product and process oriented research, conscious learning and subconscious acquisition and also has shown the current situation of SLA and future plans of designing curriculum on task based language learning. In past we have see that how difficult it is to merge social, interpersonal and psychological dimensions but now we have to see, if future plans will be able to do this and create a whole new way for SLA or again we have to find something more advance.
Resources
https://m.box.com/shared_item/https%3A%2F%2Fapp.box.com%2Fs%2Fttu0w2hcsxrcvnuq0ioyzy064tj3szcy
Thank you.
Name: Dharaba Rayjada
Semester: 3
Roll No.: 8
Paper No.: 12 English Language Teaching – 1
Enrolment No.: 2069108420180045
Email id: dharabarayjada021@gmail.com
Year: 2017-19
Submitted to: Department of English, Maharaja Krishnkumarsinhji Bhavnagar University.
Second Language Acquisition (SLA)
After coming in this world, language will become part of our existence. Without language we can not think of living. The language which we learn from our childhood is called our mother tongue and our first language. Second language is one which we choose to learn in school or we learn it after acquiring first language. The term “Second Language Acquisition (SLA)” refers to the processes through which someone acquires one or more second or foreign language. It can not be denied that acquiring a mother tongue and second language has difference. So SLA ponder upon those difference which occurs in the process of learning second language.
There is also a difference between acquiring and learning. Acquiring happens by having conversation with native speakers, while learning is a conscious process which take place in school or collages. Acquiring a language means we focus on meaningful conversation while learning language focuses on structure of language, grammar and other rules. SLA researchers also focuses on these things like weather the language came from naturalistic contexts or classroom settings. It also focuses on weather it is product, which means the language is acquired naturally, or it is process, which means language is learned through pattern follows by schools.
Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis (CA Hypothesis)
The term SLA was immerged from the comparative study of languages. It is believed that learner’s first language high and important influence on learner’s second language, from that CA Hypothesis has taken place. This hypothesis gave two terms. ‘Positive transfer’ and ‘Negative transfer’. Positive transfer refer to the language which has similar rules and which helps learner to acquire second language easily. Those language which shares same origins. As it is said earlier that learner’s first language has impact on their second language, so, while learning second language learner has rules of first language and when they apply it, it is similar and it helps learner to learn the language easily, this is called positive transfer.
Negative transfer refers to the language which has different origins and different rules. As first language is very important part of human’s life and it affects everywhere. Same like positive transfer the first language of learner interfere in learning second language also but this time both language has different rules. Now this interfere of first language in second language will harm the acquiring process of learner. This interfere is called negative transfer.
Product – Oriented Research
During the early 1970s a series of empirical investigations into learner language were carried out which became known as the 'morpheme order' studies. Morpheme means minimum meaningful language unit. These studies focuses on weather the grammar of target language has been acquired naturally or not.
Dulay and Burt (1973, 1974) both are the principal architects of the Morpheme order studies, they came up with the research like, the errors which learner does while acquiring a second language are same as they done while acquiring a first language. They believe that the process of acquiring any language is same, by listening. As they acquired a first language from their parents, same way they will acquire a second language. So the mistakes learners do in structure of language are as for both the languages. By telling this both are rejecting the CA Hypothesis, which says that, learners’ structure of first language is interfere in learning a second language. Dulay and Burt has rejected the CA Hypothesis and has given a new one called “L2 acquisition equals L1 acquisition”.
“Briefly the CA hypothesis states that while the child is learning an L2, he [or she] will tend to use his native language structures in his L2 speech, and where structures in his LI and his L2differ he will goof. For example, in Spanish, subjects are often dropped, so Spanish children learning English should tend to say Wants Miss Jones for He wants Miss Jones.
The 'L2 acquisition equals LI acquisition' hypothesis holds that children actively organize the L2 speech that they hear and make generalizations about its structure as children learning their LI do. Therefore the goofs expected in any particular L2 production would be similar to those made by children learning the same language as their LI. For example Jose want Miss Jones would be expected since LI acquisition studies have shown that childrengenerally omit functors, in this case the -s inflection for third person singular present indicative.” (Dulay and Burt 1974: 96)
The morpheme order studies indicated a predetermined order of acquisition for certain grammatical morpheme. However this research shows that this order can not be changed by instructions. Though researchers are failed to answer that why some morpheme unites are acquired earlier than others.
During the 1980s, however, a number of researchers studying the acquisition of German and English proposed an interested explanation for the disparity between instruction and acquisition based on speech-processing constraints (Pienemann 1989). They argued that every item of grammar should be structured according to its complexity. So learner will goes one step ahead every time. Though it has made for short term memory, for longer period this will not work. We can see that some items can be memorized easily while other takes time. This can be difficult during the speech process, because while speaking these all grammatical things should be in working memory and while speaking it is very hard to concentrate on every structure as speaking is very fast process, so, at that time one can only focus on one part of speech. They say that every grammatical unit should have one step ahead from learners’ capability and this is called “Teachability Hypothesis”. However to know the progress every item should be structurally graded.
The researchers who has put this idea in practice are vigorously reject the concepts of grammar structure and teachability hypothesis. They says that grammar should be taught but only when learner is mentally ready to acquire a next level. Without learner’s readiness the grammar can not be acquired. So they says that the structure and complexity of grammar should be according to the need of learners.
In the 1980s Stephen Krashen was the best known figure in the SLA field. He has given the hypothesis on despairing between learning and acquiring grammatical items. He has given two mental process, 1) Conscious Learning 2) Subconscious Acquiring.
Conscious Learning focuses on grammatical rules and make learner memorize it. While Subconscious Acquiring focuses on acquiring of grammatical rules at subconscious level. He says that both the processes are very separate from each other. Language is mean of communication, so he says language acquisition means comprehension. If learning can comprehend the structure and meaning of it, it means that learner has move one step ahead in acquiring particular language. This is called “Comprehensible Input Hypothesis”.
While putting Krashen’s hypothesis in practical practice researchers has argued that learners should be provided by very natural input. Especially extensive listening can be provide great help. In early stage when learner don’t has to articulate the language at that time listening can help in reducing the errors in structure and pronunciations. Though they emphasizing on listening but many of them are still agree with Krashen’s hypothesis.
Krashen's comprehensible input hypothesis was challenged by Swain (1985), who investigated immersion programmes in Canada in which children receive content instruction in a language other than their L1. Like those whose native language is English they got instructions in other language like French or Spanish and vice versa. What happen is students get very high amount of comprehensible input. Though their L2 is not so much developed as per the need of comprehensible input hypothesis. So according to Swain’s research, in classroom teachers are only speaking more and students are very little. So she gave an alternative hypothesis, “Comprehensible Output Hypothesis”. Which suggest that to acquire a language articulation of language is necessary.
Process – Oriented Research
This research is focused on the process through which learner passes. It focuses on the tasks which learner performs to acquire a language. It ponder upon the classroom activities and other effort which are put to input the data of target language. It focuses on products or outcomes of the process. Long (1981) has said that two way communication generate significantly modified interactions than one way communications. Two way communications means, a talk where mostly everyone is participating and everyone has something unique to share, like group discussions. While on the other hand one way communication means, only one person is involved in speaking others are just listeners, for example, the person is giving speech.
Similarly Daughty and Pica (1986) are also found that required information sharing talks can generate modified interaction than the talks where sharing information is optional. The term “Modified Interaction” means the use of language which has done by the speaker to make the language comprehensible to the speakers. This research was strongly influenced by Krashen's hypothesis that comprehensible input was a necessary and sufficient condition for SLA. The aim of language is to communicate and if it will happen in learners’ targeted language than this is what matters. The meaning of message should be understood.
The process oriented research work of Long has grown the importance of development of task based language teaching. What difference this task based language teaching wants to make is they want syllabus not according to linguistics items but it should be upon tasks. SLA research has informed the work of syllabus designers, methodologists and materials writers by suggesting that the task which encourage learners to negotiate meanings is healthy sign for acquisition. The growing importance of task in syllabus of all kinds is suggesting the growing link between process oriented research and classroom pedagogy.
Current and Future Trends and Directions
Current SLA research progress can be describe in only one word: Complex. Researchers are now come to know that language acquisition has social, interpersonal and even psychological dimensions. These all things affect learners while acquiring a new language. They come to know that input and output both are important. We can not focus only on one process, if there is input then and then output will come, so only focusing on one will not help. They come to know that form and meaning can not be separated. Every form has meaning and every meaning follows one form. And at last they come to know that acquiring or learning is a organic process not the linear process. It will take time and happen on its own it will not work under orders.
In a recent study, Martyn (1996) investigated the influence of certain task characteristics on the negotiation of meaning in small group work, looking at the following variables:
• interaction relationship: whether one person holds all of the information required to complete the task, whether each participant holds a portion of the information, or whether the information is shared;
• interaction requirement: whether or not the information must be shared;
• goal orientation: whether the task goal is convergent or divergent;
• outcome options: whether there is only a single correct outcome, or whether more than one
outcome is possible.
This researches are showing the complexity of learning environment. It also shows that how difficult of almost impossible it is to separate psychological and linguistics factors from social and interpersonal ones.
For future the major challenge is for curriculum designers, materials writers and classroom practitioners, who accepted the task based learning but they are in search to make the task with needed instructions for learners. This is a challenge because this is going to be for beginners in foreign language. The researchers also have to think on till which extent they can allow the task based learning. Experiments are under way to establish the appropriate balance and 'mix' between tasks which have non-linguistic outcomes and exercises which have linguistic outcomes.
The researchers are thinking that organic process of acquiring a language is best. We can not separate its originality and we also cannot learn anything without understanding it in particular context. The organic metaphor sees SLA more as a growing garden than building a wall. Learners do not learn one thing perfectly one item at a time, but learn numerous things simultaneously and imperfectly.
Generalizations
In general we can say that SLA provides an understanding of what language is, what learning is and if we talk about in context of classroom then what teaching is? Secondly if we understand that how children acquire their first language then it can throw light to understand the structure of acquiring a second language. Third is most important. It is to know that there is a vast difference between learners acquiring a new language. All have different level of understanding and different methods. What works for first one may not work for second one. So it is necessary to know that there is difference in acquiring a language among learners. Last one is the way learners view themselves in communication, it will affect the quantity and quality of second language learning. The way learners analyze and grade them selves will affect them at psychological level. In short their confidence level affect their learning.
Claims
It is claimed that adults acquire a second language easily. Well my vote is not going to this claim as learning a whole new language is difficult for adults also and I think it creates more hurdles to adults as their mind has grown up in a structure of particular language and to learn new language it is necessary to adjust another structure in mind so I don’t think it is easy for adults also. Second claim is that practice does not make language perfect. We have this illusion in mind that same like other things practice also can make language perfect which is not true. Practice does not make language perfect. To make your language perfect you have to put it in a practice and should have to create an atmosphere where your language can grow. Only practicing language will not help.
Third claim is that knowing a language rule does not mean that one will able to use it in communications. This is 100% true. Rules does not help in articulating language and the biggest example is your native language. When we started speaking our native language we don’t know the rules of our language then even we are articulating it and then after we have learned the rules. So it is clear that knowing language rule does not make any difference. Next is one can not achieve native like command in short period of time. To articulate a perfect and meaningful language it needs atmosphere. Without it one will not able to get command over language.
Next is comprehension of text is depended on learners ability to understand language. It is totally one learners. The way they understand language they will comprehend meaning from the same level. Then learner already has a language in their brain. They are now trying to add another language in their system so it will take time and as I am repeatedly referring that atmosphere is very important element for acquiring any language.
Conclusion
While summing up we can say that Nunan has shown the both side of SLA coin, like product and process oriented research, conscious learning and subconscious acquisition and also has shown the current situation of SLA and future plans of designing curriculum on task based language learning. In past we have see that how difficult it is to merge social, interpersonal and psychological dimensions but now we have to see, if future plans will be able to do this and create a whole new way for SLA or again we have to find something more advance.
Resources
https://m.box.com/shared_item/https%3A%2F%2Fapp.box.com%2Fs%2Fttu0w2hcsxrcvnuq0ioyzy064tj3szcy
Thank you.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.