Theories In First Language Acquisition English Language Essay

Theories In First spoken spoken voice communication attainment English row EssaySince, the second wrangle is an additional language after we acquire the head start language, the L2 gaining process evoke be influenced by the L1 culture process This essay volition make the similarities and differences in L1 and L2 acquisition by discussing various theories. Then, draw a proof based on the evidence provided and my own experience.DefinitionFirst address AcquisitionFirst linguistic process Acquisition or also know as the Child Language Acquisition is a process whereby children from early childhood through early school old age acquire their starting time languages (Lightbown Spada, 2006). The verge First Language Acquisition or FLA mass be referred to the ambit that investigates the process by which children develop to use words and sentences in their freshman language, to communicate with some otherwise people (Dictionary of Sociolinguistics, 2004).Second Languag e Acquisition correspond to a Dictionary of Sociolinguistics (2004), the term Second Language Acquisition or SLA hindquarters be referred to the academic discipline that investigate the process of compassionate when scholarship second language (L2) or additional languages other than the origin language. It involves the top executive of people to use and develop a complex governing body of sound, word, sentence structure, and meaning of any non-native language (Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science, 2005). It also tries to read factors such as environment, individual differences, and accessible aspect which can be crucial factors underlining the acquire of second language (Ortega, 2009).Theories in First Language AcquisitionVarious theories and cominges progress to been developed over the past geezerhood attempting to study and analyze how do children acquire their mother tongue. This essay will identify two main theories that explicate the learning process of the childs firs t language Behaviourism and Nativist or Innateness surmisal.BehaviourismThe behaviorism theory assumes how do children speak that children imitate what they hear, and then continue with positive support, children learn language through conditioning and habit formation (Ellis, 2008).According to B.F. muleteer and his colleagues (Gass Larry, 2008), learning or a change of behavior on the leave of the learner, is brought about by a process known as operant conditioning which is the forget of repeated training. Operant heart voluntary deportment which is the result of learners own free-will and is not forced by any outlander or thing (Ortega, 2009). The learner will demonstrate the new behaviour first as a response to a system of a reward or punishment, and finally it will become an automatic response.Behaviourists rely that learning a language is no different from learning anything else. It becomes a habit by the stimulus-response-reinforcement-repetition process (Cook, 200 1). The behaviourists also claim that we learn by imitation and by association (Lightbown Spada, 2006). However, psycholinguists argue that imitation is not adequacy because it is not only the mechanical repetition but also congenital 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 indigence are essential in learning the language. The First Language Acquisition is thus the result of nature which based on practicing.Nativist or Innateness theoryUnlike the behaviourist approach that does not take into retainer 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 learnin g and acquires them by natural exposure (Ortega, 2009). That fightr both nature and nurture influence the acquisition of language in children. He hypothesized that children are born with a specific inseparable ability to discover for themselves the underlying rules of a language system on the institution of the samples of a natural language they are exposed to (Lightbown Spada, 2006). This innate giving was seen as a sort of template, containing the principles that are universal to all kind creations. This is called normal Grammar (UG). As defined by Chomsky (1976, as cited by Cook, 2001 pp181-182) linguistic universal Grammar is the system of principles, conditions, and rules that are elements or properties of all clement languages the essence of military man language. According to Chomsky, on that point are principles, which allow or prevent a specific structure from occurring in all humankind languages, and parameters, which govern slipway in which human languages differ, usually expressed as a extra choice amidst two options (Cook, 2001). These principles and parameters 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 gadfly to explain that there is some innate mental capacity which attend 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 exclamatory on the all-important(prenominal) 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 outcome of habit formation (Larsen-Freeman retentive, 1991). By ignoring any internal mechanisms, it takes into account the linguistic environment and the stimuli it produces. It is suggested 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 viewed 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 big (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 question on contrastive analysis, especially error analysis (Ortega, 2009) . It has the main focus of which is the interference of ones first language in the target language. According to Ellis (2008), an important reaction to behaviourism was the interlanguage studies, as the simple comparison amidst first and second language neither explained nor described the language produced by L2 learners. In this essay, interlanguage studies will be excluded as the concern of the knowledge domain has been mainly with the acquisition of well-formed 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 concern 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 accountable for the initial state of language development. The UG theory considers that the input from the environment is lean to account for language acquisition. In the same perspective, White (200322) says that If it turns out that the L2 learner acquires abstract properties that could not have been induced from the input, this is strongly indicative that principles of UG reduce 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 mainframe computer 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 provide acq uisition, and more than recently, comprehension hypothesis emphasizing the mental process as responsible for acquisition (Ellis, 2008). According to Krashen (20041), The Comprehension Hypothesis is closely link 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 grammatic structure in a predictable order. A strong affective filter, such as graduate(prenominal) 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 cause relationship between input and acquisition but also states that the grammatical structure is acquired in a predictable order. Nonetheless(prenominal), like in the other theories discussed so far, his theory does not go beyond the ac quisition of grammatical structures. Krashens model lacks research evidence. As Cook (2001) points out it makes sense in its own terms but is not verifiable.Interaction theory some other attempts to explain SLA are the different versions of the interaction hypothesis defended by enshroud (1978) and by Long (1981, 1996), who did not accept Krashens Input Hypothesis. Both shroud and Long consider that input alone is not sufficient to explain SLA. spread over 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 modifi ed input, but claims that modifications in interactions are consistently found in successful SLA. Long (1996) suggests that duologue 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, particularly selective attention, and turnout 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 varied wildly (Ortega, 2009). Moreover, according to Ellis (200 8), age is recognized as being important owe 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 military group 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).