Theories In First Language Acquisition English Language Essay

Theories In branch words attainment English expression EssaySince, the second lyric is an superfluous phraseology after we aim the first address, the L2 erudition process can be influenced by the L1 learning process This essay will demonstrate the similarities and differences in L1 and L2 acquisition by discussing various theories. Then, draw a conclusion based on the evidence provided and my own experience.DefinitionFirst Language AcquisitionFirst Language Acquisition or also known as the Child Language Acquisition is a process whereby children from infancy through early give lessons years acquire their first oral communications (Lightbown Spada, 2006). The term First Language Acquisition or FLA can be referred to the field that investigates the process by which children develop to expenditure words and sentences in their first language, to communicate with some other people (Dictionary of Sociolinguistics, 2004).Second Language AcquisitionAccording to a Dictionary of Sociolinguistics (2004), the term Second Language Acquisition or SLA can be referred to the academic discipline that investigate the process of pitying when learning second language (L2) or additional languages other than the first language. It involves the ability of people to use and develop a complex system of sound, word, sentence structure, and meaning of any non-native language (Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science, 2005). It also tries to look factors such as environment, individual differences, and social aspect which can be crucial factors underlining the acquire of second language (Ortega, 2009).Theories in First Language AcquisitionVarious theories and admittancees have been developed over the past years attempting to study and analyze how do children acquire their mother tongue. This essay will identify ii main theories that explain the learning process of the childs first language Behaviourism and Nativist or Innateness theory.BehaviourismThe behaviorism theory assume s how do children speak that children practise what they hear, and then continue with positive support, children learn language through conditioning and riding habit formation (Ellis, 2008).According to B.F. Skinner and his colleagues (Gass Larry, 2008), learning or a exchange of behaviour on the part of the learner, is brought about by a process known as operant conditioning which is the result of repeated training. Operant room voluntary behaviour which is the result of learners own free-will and is non forced by any outsider or thing (Ortega, 2009). The learner will demonstrate the vernal behaviour first as a chemical reaction to a system of a reward or punishment, and finally it will become an automatic response.Behaviourists debate that learning a language is no different from learning anything else. It becomes a habit by the stimulus-response-reinforcement-repetition process (Cook, 2001). The behaviourists also claim that we learn by untrue and by association (Lightb own Spada, 2006). However, psycholinguists argue that imitation is not enough because it is not only the mechanical repetition but also natural exposure that children acquire language (Cook, 2001).Therefore, from the behaviourist approach, language acquisition can be seen as a stimulus-response process. Children learn language by immitation and analogy. The roles of imitation, repetition, reinforcement, and motivation are essential in learning the language. The First Language Acquisition is thus the result of nature which based on practicing.Nativist or Innateness theoryUn care the behaviourist approach that does not take into consideration the childs own cognitive processes, the Innateness Hypothesis proposed by linguist Noam Chomsky supports the idea that language acquisition has a biological foundation (Ortega, 2009). He claims that children learn their first languages through cognitive learning and acquires them by natural exposure (Ortega, 2009). That means both nature and n urture influence the acquisition of language in children. He hypothesized that children are born with a specific ignorant ability to discover for themselves the underlying rules of a language system on the base of operations of the samples of a natural language they are exposed to (Lightbown Spada, 2006). This innate endowment was seen as a sort of template, containing the principles that are universal to all human beings. This is called everyday Grammar (UG). As defined by Chomsky (1976, as cited by Cook, 2001 pp181-182) prevalent Grammar is the system of principles, conditions, and rules that are elements or properties of all human languages the essence of human language. According to Chomsky, in that respect are principles, which allow or prevent a specific structure from occurring in all human languages, and parameters, which govern ways in which human languages differ, usually expressed as a limited choice between two options (Cook, 2001). These principles and parameter s are built in the human mind. In other words, children have an innate faculty that instructs them while learning of language (Mitchell and Myles, 2004 33). Chomsky also introduced the Language Acquisition Device or LAD to explain that in that respect is some innate mental capacity which help the children to process all the languages they hear since they were born (Cook, 2001).Thus, from the innatist approach, language is an innate or in-born process. Children learn language by application. It argued that language learning is not a behavior but a specific mental process and emphasized on the important role of exposure to language.Theories in Second Language AcquisitionBehaviourismBehaviourism gave birth to a stimulus-response (S-R) theory which sees language as a set of structures and acquisition as a matter of habit formation (Larsen-Freeman Long, 1991). By ignoring any internal mechanisms, it takes into account the linguistic environment and the stimuli it produces. It is sugge sted that learning is an observable behaviour which is automatically acquired by means of stimulus and response in the form of mechanical repetition. Thus, to acquire a language is to acquire automatic linguistic habits. According to Johnson (2004), Behaviorism undermined the role of mental processes and learned learning as the ability to inductively discover patterns of rule-governed behavior from the examples provided to the learner by his or her environment. Larsen-Freeman and Long (1991) consider that S-R models offer little promises as explanations of SLA, except for perhaps pronunciation and the rote-memorization of formulae. This view of language learning emerged research on contrastive analysis, especially error analysis (Ortega, 2009) . It has the main focus of which is the interference of ones first language in the nates language. According to Ellis (2008), an important reaction to behaviourism was the interlanguage studies, as the simple comparison between first and sec ond language neither explained nor described the language produced by L2 learners. In this essay, interlanguage studies will be excluded as the concern of the area has been mainly with the acquisition of grammatical morphemes or specific language structures.Universal grammar theoryAccording to Cook (2001), as a counterpoint to the environmental perspective, Chomskys followers try to understand SLA in the light of his universal grammar (UG) theory, a human innate endowment. Chomsky is interested in the nature of language and sees language as a mirror of the mind (Gass Selinker, 2008). Although he is not concerned with SLA, his work has been influencing studies in this area. According to his theory, it can be seen that every human being is biologically endowed with the Language Acquisition Device (LAD), which is creditworthy for the initial state of language development. The UG theory considers that the excitant from the environment is insufficient to account for language acquisitio n. In the same perspective, White (200322) says that If it turns out that the L2 learner acquires abstract properties that could not have been bring forth from the stimulant drug, this is strongly indicative that principles of UG constrain interlanguage grammars, parallel to the situation of L1 acquisition. As Mitchel and Myles (200494) remind us, The universal Grammar approach is only interested in the learner as a processor of a mind that contains language and not as a social being.Comprehension hypothesisInfluenced by Chomskys assumptions on language as an innate faculty, Krashen developed an influential proposal to explain SLA which he first named as monitor model with emphasis on the contrast between learning and acquisition, then called it the input hypothesis (Krashen 1978, cited in Lightbown Spada, 2006). It focuses on the data which feed acquisition, and more recently, comprehension hypothesis emphasizing the mental process as responsible for acquisition (Ellis, 2008). A ccording to Krashen (20041), The Comprehension Hypothesis is closely related to other hypotheses. The Comprehension Hypothesis refers to subconscious acquisition, not conscious learning. The result of providing acquirers with comprehensible input is the emergence of grammatical structure in a predictable order. A strong affective filter, such as high anxiety, will prevent input from reaching those parts of the brain that promote language acquisition (Cook, 2001). According to Lightbown and Spada (2006), Krashens model views acquisition in a linear perspective which not only establishes a cause and effect relationship between input and acquisition but also states that the grammatical structure is acquired in a predictable order. Nonetheless, like in the other theories discussed so far, his theory does not go beyond the acquisition of grammatical structures. Krashens model lacks research evidence. As Cook (2001) points out it makes instinct in its own terms but is not verifiable.Int eraction theoryOther attempts to explain SLA are the different versions of the interaction hypothesis defended by covey (1978) and by Long (1981, 1996), who did not accept Krashens Input Hypothesis. Both wrap up and Long consider that input alone is not sufficient to explain SLA. Hatch disagrees that learners first learn structures and then use them in discourse. Hatch considers the reverse possibility. One learns how to do conversation, one learns how to interact verbally, and out of this interaction syntactic structures are developed (Harch, 1978 p. 404). Based on an empirical study, Long (1981) observed that in conversations between native and non-native speakers, there are more modifications in interaction than in the input provided by the native speakers. Long does not reject the positive role of modified input, but claims that modifications in interactions are consistently found in successful SLA. Long (1996) suggests that negotiation for meaning, especially negotiation work that triggers interactional adjustments by the NS or more competent interlocutor, facilitates acquisition because it connects input, internal learner capacities, peculiarly selective attention, and output in productiveways.However, Larsen-Freeman and Long (1991) argue that the interactionist views are more powerful than other theories because they invoke both innate and environmental factors to explain language learning.Similarities and Differences between FLA and SLAAge a key factor differentiate L1 from L2Age can be regarded as another key factor displaying the differences between L1 and L2 acquisition. Since, in the L1 acquisition, children normally complete the process by four to six years old, while the age range in acquiring the L2 can be alter wildly (Ortega, 2009). Moreover, according to Ellis (2008), age is recognized as being important owing to the assumption that older learners tend to be less successful in regard to SLA than younger learners, which may be owing to the fact that target-language norms do not pose as much of a threat to younger learners identities.However, there are two issues that many theorists have been arguing about the relationship between age and L2 acquisition. That the age effect can be approached from biological explanations or from non-biological explanations (Ortega, 2009). From the biological perspective (Gass Selinker, 2008), there is the Critical Period Hypothesis in L2 learning which is proposed by Penfield and Roberts (1959) and Lenneberg (1967). On the other hand, from the non-biological perspective, some researchers have emphasized on the influence of socio-educational and affective-motivational forces (Ortega, 2009).