Taal(on)Bewustzijn en Tweede-Taalverwerving

2002 ◽  
Vol 68 ◽  
pp. 27-37
Author(s):  
Ineke van de Craats
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Second Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Mother Tongue ◽  
Direct Access ◽  
Language Awareness ◽  
Input Enhancement ◽  
Formal Instruction ◽  
L2 Learners ◽  
L1 And L2

In this paper, the question is raised as to what extent language awareness can contribute to second-language acquisition. It is argued here that adults (without skills in any other language than their mother tongue) acquiring a second language undergo a process of increasing language awareness when they learn a second language without any formal instruction. Confronted with an unknown language the code of which they have to crack without any help, these learners seem to become aware of the features of their own language before they focus on the structure of the new language. There is no direct access to this process of language awareness, but I believe that double constructions and self-corrections produced by these learners provide evidence that they become aware of differences between L1 and L2. Finally, it is suggested that noticing and input enhancement, even some explicit contrastive information on L1-L2 differences (which spontaneous learners try out to find for themselves) might benefit L2 learners who are unaware of the fact that they still use an L1 grammatical system.

Universal Grammar in the classroom: the effects of formal instruction on second language acquisition

1991 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 162-180 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sascha W. Felix ◽  
Wilfried Weigl
Keyword(s):  
High School ◽  
Second Language ◽  
High School Students ◽  
Second Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Universal Grammar ◽  
Learning Situation ◽  
School Students ◽  
Formal Instruction ◽  
L2 Learners

One of the dominating issues in recent second language acquisition research has been the question of whether or not L2 learners have access to principles of Universal Grammar. It seems that currently there is fairly strong evidence both for and against UG-access by L2 learners. Consequently, the question arises what kinds of factors may potentially further or block UG-access and whether such factors can be related to certain properties of the learning environment. In this paper we wish to approach this question by looking at a somewhat extreme learning situation, namely the acquisition (or maybe non-acquisition) of English as a second language by 77 German high school students who learned and were exposed to English exclusively during classroom hours. These students were tested for their ability to correctly judge grammaticality contrasts in English that are standardly attributed to UG principles. The results suggest that - even under a most liberal interpretation - these students did not show any evidence of having UG-access. Rather, they utilized a number of strategies that (a) tied them very tightly to properties of German and (b) prevented them from making any generalizations that went beyond what had been explicitly taught in the classroom.

scholarly journals Research Timeline: Form-focused instruction and second language acquisition

2015 ◽  
Vol 49 (1) ◽  
pp. 35-62 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hossein Nassaji
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Second Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Formal Instruction ◽  
Zero Position ◽  
L2 Learning ◽  
The One ◽  
L1 And L2 ◽  
Learner Language

This article provides a timeline of research on form-focused instruction (FFI). Over the past 40 years, research on the role of instruction has undergone many changes. Much of the early research concentrated on determining whether formal instruction makes any difference in the development of learner language. This question was motivated in part by a theoretical discussion in the field of cognitive psychology over the role of explicit versus implicit learning, on the one hand, and a debate in the field of second language acquisition (SLA) over the role of naturalistic exposure versus formal instruction, on the other. In the early 1980s, for example, based on the notion that the processes involved in second language (L2) learning are similar to those in first language (L1) learning, Krashen (e.g., Krashen 1981, 1982, 1985) made a distinction between learning and acquisition and claimed that an L2 should be acquired through natural exposure not learned through formal instruction. Thus, he claimed that FFI has little beneficial effect on language acquisition. This position, which has also been known as a ‘zero position’ on instruction, was also taken by a number of other researchers who argued that L1 and L2 learning follow similar processes and that what L2 learners need in order to acquire a second language is naturalistic exposure to meaning-focused communication rather than formal instruction (Dulay & Burt 1974; Felix 1981; Prabhu 1987; Schwartz 1993; Zobl 1995).

On the Mutual Effect of L1 and L2 in SLA: A Brief Look at Cook's Multi-competence

2016 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 398 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mojtaba Teimourtash ◽  
Nima Shakouri
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Second Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Foreign Language ◽  
Mother Tongue ◽  
Language Teaching ◽  
First Language ◽  
Mutual Effect ◽  
Foreign Language Teaching ◽  
L1 And L2

Considering the notion of multi-competence coined by Cook (1991) calls on the necessity to revisit the stance of first language in foreign language teaching.  The use of mother tongue in second language acquisition (SLA) is widely criticized by many practitioners, notably Krashen (1981). However, more recently Widdowson (2003) also called for an explicitly bilingual approach. The present paper, though arguing for the use of L1 in L2 context, did not ignore the fact that L2 can exert inevitable effects on L1.

Child Second Language Acquisition of Syntax

1995 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 301-329 ◽  
Author(s):  
Usha Lakshmanan
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Second Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Universal Grammar ◽  
Linguistic Theory ◽  
Direct Access ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Syntactic Theory ◽  
L2 Learners

Recent advances in linguistic theory within the principles and parameters framework have exerted considerable influence on the field of second language acquisition. SLA researchers working within this framework of syntactic theory have investigated the extent to which developing second language grammars are constrained by principles of Universal Grammar (UG). Much of the UG-based SLA research in the 1980s focused on adult L2 acquisition, but the role of UG principles in child L2 acquisition remained largely unexplored. More recently, however, this state of affairs has begun to change as SLA researchers are becoming more and more interested in child second language syntactic development. In this paper, I review recent and current developments in UG-based child SLA research, and I argue that child SLA has a valuable role to play in enabling us to arrive at a better understanding of the role of biological factors in language acquisition and in strengthening the links between SLA and linguistic theory. Specifically, I discuss the findings of child SLA studies with respect to the following issues: the role of UG parameters in child SLA, the status of functional categories and their projections in child SLA, and the nature of the evidence available to and used by child L2 learners. The overall picture emerging from these studies suggests that child L2 developing grammars are indeed constrained by Universal Grammar. While it is not fully clear at the present time whether the child L2 learners& knowledge is a result of direct access to UG or indirect access to UG (i.e., through the mediation of the L1), the evidence indicates that L1 transfer (at least in certain syntactic domains) cannot be entirely ruled out.

scholarly journals Bilingual language acquisition by Korean schoolchildren in New York City

1999 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 147-167 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah J. Shin ◽  
Lesley Milroy
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Second Language ◽  
Second Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Acquisition ◽  
First Language ◽  
L2 Learners ◽  
Korean And English ◽  
Plural Marking ◽  
American Children ◽  
L1 And L2

This paper examines the bilingual language development of young Korean–American children with respect to their acquisition of English grammatical morphemes and the different plural marking systems of Korean and English. We address two specific issues: (1) “do L1 and L2 learners acquire the grammatical features of a given language in the same sequence?” and (2) “do L2 learners of different L1 backgrounds learn the grammatical features of a given second language in the same sequence?” Comparison of our results with those of other morpheme acquisition studies suggests that L1 and L2 learners of English do not acquire English grammatical features in the same sequence. Furthermore, there is evidence that first language influences the course of second language acquisition. Results of an experimental study of plural marking suggest that the bilingual children in most, but not all, respects follow similar, but delayed patterns of first language acquisition of Korean and successive acquisition of English.

Anaphora Resolution in Second Language Acquisition

Linguistics ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cristóbal Lozano
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Second Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Research Methods ◽  
Mother Tongue ◽  
Anaphora Resolution ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
English Sentence ◽  
L2 Learners ◽  
And Performance

An area of second language acquisition (SLA) that has received much attention over the past decades is how adult second language (L2) learners acquire and process anaphors like overt and null pronouns. Anaphors are a pervasive phenomenon in language. SLA researchers have focused on Anaphora Resolution (AR), i.e., the mechanisms that allow speakers to determine how anaphors refer to their antecedents. Consider the English sentence David greeted Hugo while he was opening the door. The anaphor (the obligatory overt pronominal subject he) could potentially refer to either antecedent (the subject David or the object Hugo). In null-subject languages (e.g., Spanish, Italian, Greek, Arabic, Japanese, etc.), the situation is more complex, since both an overt (él ‘he’ in Spanish) and a null (Ø) pronominal subject can syntactically alternate and either can potentially refer to either antecedent: David saludó a Hugo mientras él/Ø abría la puerta. Adult L2 learners have an additional difficulty when resolving the anaphor since the way AR works in their mother tongue (L1) could influence their L2 acquisition. AR is a very frequent phenomenon whose investigation can shed light on fundamental questions in the discipline of SLA and Bilingualism: Acquisition and processing issues (How do adult learners acquire and process AR in their L2?); cross-linguistic influence (How does the anaphoric setup from their L1 influence their L2 acquisition? Does the learners’ L1 have a facilitative effect on their L2 in cases where the L1=L2 in terms of AR?); L2 development (How does AR develop in an L2 across proficiency levels?); ultimate attainment (Can near-native learners eventually master the subtleties of AR in their L2 in a native-like fashion?); the multiple factors that constrain AR (Which are the multiple (psycho)linguistic and discursive factors that determine learners’ anaphoric choice?); research methods (Which research methods (naturalistic versus experimental) can best reflect learners’ competence and performance of AR?); linguistic theory (Which are the SLA models that can best account for the observed AR facts in an L2?). In this article we will refer to key studies that address these topics. Given the topics covered in this bibliographical article (AR in adult SLA), the reader is referred to other related Oxford Bibliographies articles: anaphora and pronouns (see Anaphora, and Pronouns) as well as chapters covering aspects of SLA and bilingualism (Psycholinguistic Perspectives on Second Language Acquisition and Bilingualism, and Bilingualism and Multilingualism).

scholarly journals Comparing and explaining the trajectories of first and second language acquisition: in search of the right mix of psychological and linguistic factors

1998 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 29-30 ◽  
Author(s):  
GERARD KEMPEN
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Second Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Processing ◽  
Universal Grammar ◽  
Emotional Reactions ◽  
Parameter Setting ◽  
Learning Mechanisms ◽  
L2 Learners ◽  
L1 And L2

When you compare the behavior of two different age groups which are trying to master the same sensori-motor or cognitive skill, you are likely to discover varying learning routes: different stages, different intervals between stages, or even different orderings of stages. Such heterogeneous learning trajectories may be caused by at least six different types of factors:(1) Initial state: the kinds and levels of skills the learners have available at the onset of the learning episode.(2) Learning mechanisms: rule-based, inductive, connectionist, parameter setting, and so on.(3) Input and feedback characteristics: learning stimuli, information about success and failure.(4) Information processing mechanisms: capacity limitations, attentional biases, response preferences.(5) Energetic variables: motivation, emotional reactions.(6) Final state: the fine-structure of kinds and levels of subskills at the end of the learning episode.This applies to language acquisition as well. First and second language learners probably differ on all six factors. Nevertheless, the debate between advocates and opponents of the Fundamental Difference Hypothesis concerning L1 and L2 acquisition have looked almost exclusively at the first two factors. Those who believe that L1 learners have access to Universal Grammar whereas L2 learners rely on language processing strategies, postulate different learning mechanisms (UG parameter setting in L1, more general inductive strategies in L2 learning). Pienemann opposes this view and, based on his Processability Theory, argues that L1 and L2 learners start out from different initial states: they come to the grammar learning task with different structural hypotheses (SOV versus SVO as basic word order of German).

scholarly journals Subjacency Violations in Second Language Acquisition: Some Evidence from Chinese Mandarin Speakers of L2 English

2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Xia Dai
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Second Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Literature Review ◽  
Native Speakers ◽  
Chinese Speakers ◽  
Follow Up Study ◽  
L2 Learners ◽  
Mandarin Speakers

The literature review shows that many previous studies have used Subjacency to test the availability of UniversalGrammar (UG) in second language acquisition. Schachter (1989) claimed that L2 learners do not have access to UGprinciples, while Hawkins and Chan (1997) suggested that L2 learners had partial availability of UG, for they foundthere was a strong difference between the elementary L2 learners and the advanced L2 learners in judging theungrammaticality of Subjacency violations; that is, the elementary L2 learners owned the highest accuracy. Underthe hypothesis of partially availability of UG in second language acquisition, L2 learners are only able to acquire theproperties instantiated in their L1s. Although they may accept violations of universal constraints, it is only at facevalue; rather the L2 learners develop different syntactic representations from the native speakers. This study has beenundertaken as a follow-up study of Hawkins and Chan (1997), and tested on L1 Mandarin speakers of L2 English injudging the grammaticality of their Subjacency violations. The results of the Grammaticality Judgement Test showthat the accuracy of Chinese speakers in judgement increased with English proficiency and that they rejectedresumptives inside islands as a repair. Contrary to the previous findings, this study provides evidence that UG isavailable in adult second language acquisition.

scholarly journals Second Language Acquisition of the English Dative Alternation by Native Speakers of Arabic

2018 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 65-88
Author(s):  
Anwar S. Aljadani
Keyword(s):  
Experimental Study ◽  
Second Language ◽  
Second Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Native Speakers ◽  
Double Object ◽  
Dative Alternation ◽  
L2 Learners ◽  
Semantic Properties

Abstract This paper reports on an experimental study that investigates the influence of the disparity between English and Arabic on second language acquisition, namely the phenomenon of the acquisition of the English dative alternation by Arab learners. The disallowance of certain Arabic verbs to occur in the double object dative structure causes difficulty for Arab learners to acquire English as far as the acquisition of the dative alternation is concerned. The experiment is devised to examine whether Arab learners are sensitive to syntactic and semantic properties associated with the English dative alternation. The experiment involved picture tasks with two structures: the prepositional dative structure and the double object dative structure. Overall, the results of the experiment show that the L2 learners failed to acquire the double object dative structure which does not exist in their L1. Based on these results, it is argued that L1 has an important effect on the acquisition of L2.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document