scholarly journals A cross-language study of the speech sounds in Yorùbá and Malay: Implications for Second Language Acquisition

2013 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Boluwaji Oshodi
Keyword(s):  
Second Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Native Speakers ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Sound System ◽  
Austronesian Language ◽  
Correct Pronunciation ◽  
Cross Language ◽  
L1 And L2 ◽  
Source Of Error

Acquiring a language begins with the knowledge of its sounds system which falls under the branch of linguistics known as phonetics. The knowledge of the sound system becomes very important to prospective learners particularly L2 learners whose L1 exhibits different sounds and features from the target L2 because this knowledge is vital in order to internalise the correct pronunciation of words. This study examined and contrasted the sound systems of Yorùbá a Niger-Congo language spoken in Nigeria to that of Malay (Peninsular variety), an Austronesian language spoken in Malaysia with emphasis on the areas of differences. The data for this study were collected from ten participants; five native female Malay speakers who are married to Yorùbá native speakers but live in Malaysia and five Yorùbá native speakers who reside in Nigeria. The findings revealed that speakers from both sides have difficulties with sounds and features in the L2 which are not attested in their L1 and they tended to substitute them for similar ones in their L1 through transfer. This confirms the fact that asymmetry between the sound systems of L1 and L2 is a major source of error in L2 acquisition.

Motion events in Spanish L2 acquisition

2006 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 183-216 ◽  
Author(s):  
Teresa Cadierno ◽  
Lucas Ruiz
Keyword(s):  
Second Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Learners ◽  
Native Speakers ◽  
The Other ◽  
Motion Events ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Adult Language Learners ◽  
Thinking For Speaking ◽  
L1 Acquisition ◽  
L1 And L2

The overall aim of this paper is to discuss how Talmy’s (1985, 2000) typological framework and Slobin’s (1996) thinking for speaking hypothesis can be fruitful for the investigation of how adult language learners come to express motion events in an L2. We report an empirical study which compares the expression of the semantic components of Path and Manner of motion by three groups of informants: (a) learners whose L1 and L2 belong to different typological patterns (Danish learners of Spanish; (b) learners whose L1 and L2 share the same typological pattern (Italian learners of Spanish); and (c) Spanish native speakers. Based on previous research on L1 acquisition, it was hypothesized that the Danish learner group would exhibit a higher degree of elaboration of the two semantic components than the other informant groups. The results of the study, however, show a limited role for the L1 thinking for speaking patterns in advanced second language acquisition.

First- and Second-Language Acquisition and CILC

2020 ◽  
pp. 214-240
Author(s):  
Eva Duran Eppler ◽  
Gabriel Ozón
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Second Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Contact ◽  
Language Change ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Language Variation And Change ◽  
Language Data ◽  
L1 And L2

This chapter explores the contested role of L1 and L2 acquisition in contact-induced linguistic change (CILC). We first identify three factors underlying these controversies (field of research; theoretical approach; and methodological limitations/advances), before discussing two elements language change and language acquisition have in common (i.e., isolated individuals cannot accomplish either, and both have to be studied through natural language data, with its attendant high degree of variation). We go on to define key terms and concepts for the role of L1 and L2 acquisition in contact-induced language change, including first and second language acquisition (L1A and L2A), bilingual first language acquisition, language variation and change, language contact and contact-induced language change. In the main section we discuss the role of L1A and L2A in CILC, and examine different language-acquisition scenarios, in particular their potential for leading to CILC. We use these different language-acquisition types as testing grounds for the motivations behind (i.e., causes for, and triggers of) language change, and arrive at tentative conclusions about which of these language-acquisition scenarios is more likely to play a role in CILC, and why.

First language acquisition... second language acquisition: ‘What’s Hecuba to him or he to Hecuba?’

2001 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 329-344
Author(s):  
Susan Foster-Cohen
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Second Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Research Question ◽  
First Language ◽  
Language Learner ◽  
First Language Acquisition ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
L1 Acquisition ◽  
L1 And L2

Second language (L2) research appeals to first language acquisition research frequently and standardly. It is important, however, to take stock from time to time of the uses that second language acquisition (SLA) makes of its sister field. Whether we use first language (L1) research to generate or bolster the importance of a particular research question, to argue for a fundamental similarity or a fundamental difference between the two sorts of acquisition, or to offer guidance in the formulation of research paradigms, it is important that we do so with our critical eyes open.This article examines the possible and specific relationships between L1 acquisition and SLA, with the aim of showing that a number of assumptions warrant closer inspection. It begins by examining the expressions ‘first language acquisition’ and ‘second language acquisition’, suggesting that the syntactic and lexical parallelism between the two masks important issues internal to the fields involved. It then explores problems in distinguishing L1 from L2 acquisition from three different perspectives: individual language learner histories, the data, and the mechanisms proposed to account for the two types of acquisition. Finally, it takes a brief look at the sociology of L1 and L2 studies, and suggests that second language study has yet to assume fully its rightful place in the academy.

On the Difference Between L1 and L2 Acquisition of Phonology

1987 ◽  
Vol 32 (3) ◽  
pp. 245-259
Author(s):  
Terry Piper
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Language Acquisition ◽  
First Language ◽  
First Language Acquisition ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Sound System ◽  
Phonological Processes ◽  
L2 Learners ◽  
The Difference ◽  
L1 And L2

It has been argued extensively that children acquiring a second language (L2) simplify the target sounds of that language using the same phonological processes as children use in acquiring their first language (L1) (cf. Hecht and Mulford 1982; Piper, 1984a, 1984b; Garnica and Herbert 1979). Since these processes are generally thought to be universal, it is not surprising that this should be the case. Nevertheless, there are differences between L1 and L2 learners both in the simplification processes they use and in the way they use them. Some processes do not appear at all or appear unsystematically in L2 learners; some processes are retained much longer by L2 learners than would be expected given their early disappearance in L1 learners. In this paper, I take a closer look at the incidence, duration and systematicity of these processes in the developing phonology of ten ESL children, and attempt to demonstrate some ways in which normal acquisition of the L2 sound system by children differs from first language acquisition.

Linguistic universals, markedness and learnability: comparing two different approaches

1989 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 127-140 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lydia White
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Second Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Universal Grammar ◽  
The Other ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Subset Principle ◽  
Similarities And Differences ◽  
L1 And L2 ◽  
Language Learnability

There are currently two different linguistically-based approaches to universals in second language acquisition, one stemming from typological universals (Greenberg, 1966) and the other from Chomskyan Universal Grammar. Associated with each approach is a concept of markedness. Typologists define markedness implicationally; current theories of language learnability define markedness in terms of the Subset Principle. Although coming from very different perspectives, these two definitions of markedness coincide in a number of predictions they make for L1 and L2 acquisition. Similarities and differences between these two approaches to markedness and acquisition are discussed in this paper.

Linguistic Input and Conversational Strategies in L1 and L2

1980 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-16 ◽  
Author(s):  
Barry McLaughlin
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Second Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Acquisition ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Linguistic Input ◽  
L1 And L2 ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Do So

There has been a great deal of discussion in the literature on second-language acquisition about the relationship between first-(L1) and second-language (L2) acquisition. I believe that the dust is beginning to settle and that it is now possible to move beyond this debate. I would like to do so in this paper, and examine in particular the role of linguistic input in L1 and L2 and the nature of conversational strategies in both processes.

scholarly journals Studying individual differences in the social environment to better understand language learning and processing

2016 ◽  
Vol 2 (s1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Shiri Lev-Ari
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Individual Differences ◽  
Second Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Learning ◽  
Social Environment ◽  
Native Speakers ◽  
Linguistic Performance ◽  
The Social

AbstractPeople learn language from their social environment. Therefore, individual differences in the input that their social environment provides could influence their linguistic performance. Nevertheless, investigation of the role of individual differences in input on performance has been mostly restricted to first and second language acquisition. In this paper I argue that individual differences in input can influence linguistic performance even in adult native speakers. Specifically, differences in input can affect performance by influencing people’s knowledgebase, by modulating their processing manner, and by shaping expectations. Therefore, studying the role that individual differences in input play can improve our understanding of how language is learned, processed and represented.

scholarly journals Different speakers, different grammars

2012 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 219-253 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ewa Dąbrowska
Keyword(s):  
Second Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Learners ◽  
Native Speakers ◽  
Linguistic Knowledge ◽  
Inflectional Morphology ◽  
Subordinate Clauses ◽  
General Rules ◽  
Widespread Belief ◽  
Ultimate Attainment

This article reviews several recent studies suggesting that — contrary to a widespread belief — adult monolingual native speakers of the same language do not share the same mental grammar. The studies examined various aspects of linguistic knowledge, including inflectional morphology, passives, quantifiers, and more complex constructions with subordinate clauses. The findings suggest that, in some cases, language learners attend to different cues in the input and end up with different grammars; in others, some speakers extract only fairly specific, ‘local’ generalizations which apply to particular subclasses of items while others acquire more abstract rules which apply ‘across the board’. At least some of these differences are education-related: more educated speakers appear to acquire more general rules, possibly as a result of more varied linguistic experience. These findings have interesting consequences for research on bilingualism, particularly for research on ultimate attainment in second language acquisition, as well as important methodological implications for all language sciences.

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