FOUNDATION OF SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

A.    Background

            Second Language Acquisition (SLA) refers to the study of how students learn a second language additionally to their first language . Although it is referred as Second Language Acquisition, it is the process of learning any language after the first language whether it is the second, third or fourth language. Therefore, any other language apart from the first language is called a second language  or also referred to as a target language .The Collins Dictionary defines Second Language as the language that a person learns after his or her native language and Foreign Language as a language that is used in a country other than one’s native country (2013). There are different ways to acquire second or foreign languages. It can be in a formal way as in a classroom environment or informal way such as when the learner picks up the language by being

culturally active participant of the society. This can be done by attending school in the target country, watching local television, listening to radio or/and reading newspapers in L2. By being actively involved in the learning environment, the learner is constantly in contact with the target language through normal daily routines. It is extremely important in second language acquisition to look at the learning environment and investigate if the age factor has any effect. Also, motivation is another significant factor of SLA that needs to be discussed to find out if it is related to higher language competences as Gardner and Lambert (1979) have thoroughly investigated.

B. Formulation Of The Problem

1.      What is the world of second languages?

2.      How to explain the nature of language learning?

3.      How to make differences between first language and second language?.

C.    The Purpose Of the problem

1.      To know definition and the world of second language

2.      Can explain nature and different of first language and second language

CHAPTER II

DISCUSSION

Foundations of Second Language Acquisition

            A second language is typically an official or societally dominant language needed for education, employment, and other basic purposes. It is often acquired by minority group members or immigrants who speak another language natively. In this more restricted sense, the term is contrasted with other terms in this list. Second Language Acquisition (SLA) involves a wide range of language learning settings and learner characteristics and circumstances.

A.    The World Of Second Language Acquisition

            Multilingualism refers to the ability to use two or more languages. (Some linguists and psychologists use bilingualism for the ability to use two languages and multilingualism for more than two, but we will not make that distinction here). Monolingualism refers to the ability to use only one. No one can say for sure how many people are multilingual, but a reasonable estimate is that at least half of the world’s population is in this category. Multilingualism is thus by no means a rare phenomenon, but a normal and common occurrence in most parts of the world. According to François Grosjean, this has been the case as far back as we have any record of language use

            Bilingualism is present in practically every country of the world, in all classes of society, and in all age groups. In fact it is difficult to find a society that is genuinely monolingual. Not only is bilingualism worldwide, it is a phenomenon that has existed since the beginning of language in human history. It is probably true that no language group has ever existed in isolation from other language groups, and the history of languages is replete with examples of language contact leading to some form of bilingualism. (1982:1)

            Reporting on the more recent situation, G. Richard Tucker concludes that there are many more bilingual or multilingual individuals in the world than there are monolingual. In addition, there are many more children throughout the world who have been and continue to be educated through a second or a later-acquired language, at least for some portion of their formal education, than there are children educated exclusively via the first language. (1999:1)   

            Given the size and widespread distribution of multilingual populations, it is somewhat surprising that an overwhelming proportion of the scientific attention which has been paid to language acquisition relates only to monolingual conditions and to first language acquisition.  While there are interesting similarities between  L1 and L2 acquisition, the processes cannot be equated, nor can multilingualism be assumed to involve simply the same knowledge and skills as monolingualism except in more than one language.

            L2 users differ from monolinguals in L1 knowledge; advanced L2 users differ from monolinguals in L2 knowledge; L2 users have a different metalinguistic awareness from monolinguals; L2 users have different cognitive processes. These subtle differences consistently suggest that people with multicompetence are not simply equivalent to two monolinguals but are a unique combination. (Cook 1992 :557)

Table Estimated L1/ L2 distribution of numerically dominant Languages

	L1 speakers (in millions)	L2 speakers (in millions)
Chinese	1.200	15
English	427	950
Spanish	266	350
Hindi	182	350

B.     The Nature Of Language Learning

            Much of your own L1 acquisition was completed before you ever came to school, and this development normally takes place without any conscious effort. By the age of six months an infant has produced all of the vowel sounds and most of the consonant sounds of any language in the world,including some that do not occur in the language(s) their parents speak. If young children hear and respond to two (or more) languages in their environment, the result will be  simultaneous multilingualism (multiple L1s acquired by about three years of age).

1.      The role of natural ability

            Humans are born with a natural ability or innate capacity to learn language. Sucha predisposition must be assumed in order to explain several facts:

·         Children begin to learn their L1 at the same age, and in much the same way, whether it is English, Bengali, Korean, Swahili, or any other language in the world. 

·         Children master the basic phonological and grammatical operations in their L1 by the age of about five or six, as noted above, regardless of what the language is. 

·         Children can understand and create novel utterances; they are not limited to repeating what they have heard, and indeed the utterances that children produce are often systematically different from those of the adults around them. 

·         There is a cut-off age for L1 acquisition, beyond which it can never be complete. 

·          Acquisition of L1 is not simply a facet of general intelligence. 

            In viewing the natural ability to acquire language in terms of  innate capacity, we are saying that part of language structure is genetically “given” to every human child. All languages are incredibly complex systems which no children could possibly master in their early years to the degree they succeed in doing so if they had to “learn” them in the usual sense of that word.

2.      The role of social experience

            Not all of L1 acquisition can be attributed to innate ability, for languagespecific learning

also plays a crucial role. Even if the universal properties of language are preprogrammed in children, they must learn all of those features which distinguish their L1 from all other possible human languages.

            Intentional L1 teaching to young children is not necessary and indeed may have little effect. Some parents “correct” their children’s immature pronunciation and grammar but most do not, and there is no noticeable change in rate of acquisition among children who receive such instruction.

            Some adults imitate children’s language production, and in this imitation, they sometimes provide expansions of children’s structures (such as saying  Yes, that’s a big, brown dog  in response to the child saying  That dog ). The expansion may play a role in developing

children’s ability to understand new forms, but it cannot be considered necessary since many children do not receive this type of input and still develop language at essentially the same rate.

            Sources of L1 input and interaction vary depending on cultural and social factors. Mothers’ talk is often assumed to be the most important source of early language input to children, but fathers or older siblings have major childrearing responsibilities in many societies and may be the dominant source of input, and wealthier social classes in many cultures delegate most of the childrearing responsibilities to nannies or servants.

            When young children’s social experience includes people around them using two or more languages, they have the same innate capacity to learn both or all of them, along with the same ability to learn the language specific features of each without instruction.

C.    L1 Versus L2 Learning

            This brief comparison of L1 and L2 learning is divided into three phases. The first is the  initial state , which many linguists and psychologists believe includes the underlying knowledge about language structures and principles that is in learners’ heads at the very start of L1 or L2 acquisition. The second phase, the intermediate states, covers all stages of basic language development. This includes the maturational changes which take place in what I have called “child grammar,” and the L2 developmental sequencewhich is known as learner language  (also  interlanguage or IL ). For this phase, we will compare processes of L1 and L2 development, and then compare the conditions which are necessary or which facilitate language learning. The third phase is the  final state , which is the outcome of L1 and L2 learning.

1.      Initial state

            Some linguists and psychologists believe that the genetic predisposition which children have from birth to learn language remains with them throughout life, and that differences in the final outcomes of L1 and L2 learning are attributable to other factors. Others believe that some aspects of the innate capacity which children have for L1 remain in force for acquisition of sub sequent languages, but that some aspects of this natural ability are lost with advancing age.

            The initial state for L2 learning also includes knowledge of means for accomplishing such interactional functions as requesting, commanding, promising, and apologizing, which have developed in conjunction with L1 acquisition but are not present in the L1 initial state.

2.      Intermediate states

            Both L1 and L2 learners go through intermediate states as they progress from their initial to their final state linguistic systems. In the fact that L1 and L2 learners both play a creative role in their own language development and do not merely mimic what they have heard or been taught.

Ø  Processes

 In contrast, the development of learner language (or interlanguage) for L2 learners occurs at an age when cognitive maturity cannot be considered a significant factor; L2 learners have already reached a level of maturity where they can understand and produce complex utterances in their L1, and level of maturity is not language-specific. Two major types of transfer which occur are:

·         Positive transfer, when an L1 structure or rule is used in an L2 utterance and that use is appropriate or “correct” in the L2; and

·         Negative transfer (or interference ), when an L1 structure or rule is used in an L2 utterance and that use is inappropriate and considered an “error.”

Ø  Necessary conditions

Language input to the learner is absolutely necessary for either L1 or L2 learning to take place. Children additionally require direct, reciprocal interaction with other people for L1 learning to occur. They cannot learn L1 exclusively from such experiences as listening to radio or watching television. Evidence of such L2 learning is found among highly motivated individuals whose L2 input was limited entirely to electronic media and books because of geographical or political isolation.

Ø  Facilitating conditions

While L1 learning by children occurs without instruction, and while the rate of L1 development is not significantly influenced by correction of immature forms or by degree of motivation to speak, both rate and ultimate level of development in L2 can be facilitated or inhibited by many social and individual factors.

Some of the conditions which will be explored in chapters that follow

are:

·         Feedback, including correction of L2 learners’ errors 

·         Aptitude, including memory capacity and analytic ability 

·         Motivation, or need and desire to learn 

·         Instruction, or explicit teaching in school settings    

3.      Final state

                  The final state is the outcome of L1 or L2 learning. The final state of L1 development– by definition – is native linguistic competence.

            On the other hand, the final state of L2 development– again by commonly held definition– can never be totally native linguistic competence, and the level of proficiency which learners reach is highly variable. Some learners reach at least “near-native” or “native-like” competence in L2 along with native competence in L1, but many cease at some point to make further progress toward the learning target in response to L2 input, resulting in a final state which still includes instances of L1 interference or creative structures different from any that would be produced by a native speaker of the L2 (a “frozen” state of progress known as   fossilization in SLA).

D.         The logical problem of language learning

            The “problem” as it has been formulated by linguist relates most importantly to syntactic phenomena. The notion that innate linguistic knowledgemust underlie language acquisition was prominently espoused by Noam Chomsky ( 1957 ,  1965 ).

            This view has been supported by arguments such as the following:

1.      Children’s knowledge of language goes beyond what could be learned from the input they receive

This is essentially the  poverty-of-the-stimulus  argument. According to this argument, children often hear incomplete or ungrammatical utterance along with grammatical input and yet they are somehow able to filter the language they hear so that the ungrammatical input is not incorporated into their L1 system. In addition, children hear only a finite subset of possible grammatical sentences, and yet they are able to abstract general principles and constraints which allow them to interpret and produce an infinite number of sentences which they have never heard before.

2.      Constraints and principles cannot be learned

                   Children’s access to general constraints and principles which govern language could account for the relatively short time it takes for the L1 grammar to emerge, and for the fact that it does so systematically and without any “wild” divergences. In addition to the lack of negative evidence mentioned above, constraints and principles cannot be learned in part because children acquire a first language at an age when such abstractions are beyond their comprehension; constraints and principles are thus outside the realm of learning processes which are related to general intelligence.

            Universal patterns of development cannot be explained by language-specific input Linguistic    input always consists of the sounds, words, phrases, sentences, and other surface-level units of a specific human language. However, in spite of the surface differences in input (to the point that people who are speaking different languages can’t understand one another), there are similar patterns in child acquisition of any language in the world. f we extend the logical problem from L1 acquisition to SLA, we need to explain how it is possible for individuals to achieve multilingual competence when that also involves knowledge which transcends what could be learned from the input they receive. Most of what we now know about L1 versus L2 learning is based on study of L1 learning by young children and L2 learning by older children or adults.

E.     Frameworks for SLA

Important theoretical frameworks that have influenced the SLA approaches which we will consider, arranged by the discipline with which they are primarily associated, and sequenced according to the decade(s) in which they achieved relevant academic prominence.

1.      Linguistic

 There have been two foci for the study of SLA from a linguistic perspective

since 1960:internal and external

·         Internal focus

The first linguistic framework with an internal focus is  Transformational Generative Grammar (Chomsky 1957 , 1965 ). The appearance of this work revolutionized linguistic theory and had a profound effect on the study of both first and second languages. This framework was followed by the Principles and Parameters Model and the  Minimalist  Program, also formulated by Chomsky. Specification of what constitutes “innate    capacity” in language acquisition has been revised to include more abstract notions of general principles and constraints that are common to all human languages as part of  Universal  Grammar.

Another development within this theoretical approach has focused on the  linguistic interfaces  between different modules of language such as lexicon and morphology,    syntax and semantics, and semantics and pragmatics or discourse.

·         External focus

They differ from the Chomskyan frameworks in emphasizing the information content of utterances, and in considering language primarily as a system of communication. Some of them emphasize similarities and differences among the world’s languages and relate these to sequence and relative difficulty of learning; some emphasize acquisition as largely a process of mapping relations between linguistic functions and forms, motivated by communicative need; and some emphasize the means learners have of structuring information in L2 production and how this relates to acquisition.

2.        Psychological

·         Languages and the brain.

The location and representation of language in the brain has been of interest to biologists and psychologists since the nineteenth century, and the expanding field of     neuro linguistics was one of the first to influence cognitive perspectives on SLA when systematic study began in the 1960s.

·         Learning processes

The focus on learning processes has been heavily influenced by computer based Information Processing (IP) models of learning, which were established in cognitive psychology by the 1960s.They have been especially productive in addressing the question of  how learners acquire knowledge of L2, and in providing explanations for sequencing in language development. Processability is a more recently developed framework which extends IP concepts of learning and applies them to teaching second languages. Connectionism is another cognitive framework for the focus on learning processes, beginning in the1980s and becoming increasingly influential. Psychological frameworks which focus primarily on learning processes have long recognized their complex nature, but twenty-first century theory and research on SLA has increased emphasis on the nature and effect of complex systems in their own right (see e.g. Larsen Freeman and Cameron 2008).

·         Learner differences

The focus on learner differences in SLA has been most concerned with the question of why some learners are more successful than others. It arises in part from the  humanistic  framework within psychology, which has a long history in that discipline, but has significantly influenced second language teaching and SLA research only since the 1970s (see Williams and Burden 1997). This framework calls for consideration of emotional involvement in learning, such as affective factors of    attitude, motivation, and anxiety level. This focus also considers biological differences associated with    age and    sex, as well as some differences associated with aspects of processing.  

3.      Social

            Some of the frameworks that I categorize within a social perspective can also be considered linguistic, since they relate to language form and function; some can also be considered cognitive, since they explore learning processes or attitude and motivation. There are two foci for the study of SLA from this perspective: 

·         Microsocial focus

The concerns within the microsocial focus relate to language acquisition and use in immediate social contexts of production, interpretation, and interaction.

·         Macrosocial focus

The concerns of the macrosocial focus relate language acquisition and use to broader ecological contexts, including cultural, political, and educational settings.

Table Perspective, foci, frameworks

Perspective	Focus	Framework
Linguistics	Internal	Transformational- Generative Grammar principles and Parameters Model Minimalist Program Interfaces
	External	functionalism
Psychological	Languages and the brain	Neurolinguistics
	Learning Processes	Information Processing Processability Connectionism Complexity Theory
	Individual differences	Humanistic models
Social	Microsocial	Variation theory Accomodation Theory Sociocultural Theory Computer Mediated Communicatio
	Macrosocial	Ethnography of Communication Acculturation Theory Social Psychology

CHAPTER III

CLOSING

                    . CONCLUSION

            For a variety of reasons, the majority of people in the world know more than one language. The first    language is almost always learned effortlessly, and with nearly invariant success; second language learning involves many different conditions and processes, and success

is far from certain. This may be at least partly because older learners no longer have the same natural ability to acquire languages as do young children, and because second language learning is influenced by prior knowledge of the first and by more individual and contextual factors. This chapter has identified a number of theoretical frameworks which provide the bases for different approaches to the study of SLA that we will consider. All of these approaches address the basic  what ,how, and why questions that we posed, but they have different foci of interest and attention. Linguistic frameworks differ in taking an internal or external focus on language; psychological frameworks differ in whether they focus on languages and the brain, on learning

processes, or on individual differences; and social frameworks differ in placing their emphasis on micro or macro factors in learning. Like the lenses with different color filters used in photographing Mars, these complement one another and all are needed to gain a full spectrum picture of the multidimensional processes involved in SLA. Even so, much remains a mystery, stimulating continued research.