This reaction paper summarizes and evaluates the works of Vivian Cook and Nation on second language acquisition. Regarding Cook's work, the paper explains that Cook believes the relationship between the first and second language is crucial, and that their level of similarity determines if the second language is a sub-field or completely new subject. The paper critiques that Cook lacked examples and did not sufficiently connect children and adult grammar. For Nation, the paper outlines five suggestions he provides to encourage second language use in the classroom, such as matching task demands to proficiency and using role play. The paper concludes that while both works were meticulous, Nation's practical focus on classroom experiences made his claims more convincing.

1. Reaction paper on Cook and Nation’s work.
Bryan Abos-Padilla and Arnoldo Cabrera.
Summary
One of the ideas of Vivian Cook is that in a second language acquisition (SLA) the
relationship between both languages is crucial because it defines the nature of the second
language; if both languages are similar, the second language (L2) will be a sub field of the first.
However, if they are different, L2 will be a subject completely different and the learner will have to
start from the bases. Cook also states that children and adults in SLA must have different types of
grammar structures, due to their languages which are independent languages system. These
structures became known as interlanguage hypothesis. Furthermore, Cook also argues that most
of the research techniques are borrowed from first language acquisition, which is possible because
of the main purpose; the language acquisition that relates these two categories. Vivian also points
out the similarities and differences between first and second language acquisition, which are
factors that have something to do with language acquisition, differences such as the difficulties of
the first, and SLA according to the age of the learner, situations, language inputs, etc.
Nation, on the other hand, suggests five ways to encourage the use of L2 in the classroom.
Those suggestions are: First, Matching the demands of the task with the student’s proficiency.
Students might think that they are not ready to finish an activity in L2 if they think it’s already hard
enough in L1, so the teacher must provide a context to develop the task. Second, changing the
circumstances of the task by using role play elements. This helps the students to feel more
confidents when being in character. Third, Changing student’s attitude to using English by
informing the students of the learning goal of the class, discussing the value of using English and
the problems with the abuse of L1, and seek a collaborative solution for it, setting up a monitoring
system and using non threating tasks. Fourth, approaching the problem systematically. The
solution given to this problem are plenty, but should not be seen as alternatives, but as
complementary ways out. Another way to see L1 is not as a problem, but as a disadvantage. And
finally, using L1 can help learning. L1 can be used mainly to explain the procedure of a task, so
make it clearer than in L2. This should throw better results comparing the outcome with the goal
of the task.

2. Evaluation
Cook’s paper was very well thought and backed up properly in terms of expressing his
ideas, but we think he lacked on examples such as real cases and some topics should have been
seeing in more depth. Topics such as the children that grow as bilinguals were not present in the
text and it would have been interesting to understand what happens in their minds according to
Cook.
On the other hand, Cook conceived the grammar of children and adults as separated
things and not making much connections between them. We strongly differ from him, being that
we think that the grammar of the adult is the result of the evolution of the mental processes that
occurs in the subject’s mind. Therefore, we would have seek for a connection between the
grammar of children and adults.
The above mentioned is a minor criticism we can do to Cook’s work. He actually convince
us with this piece of work, especially when talking about the importance of the relationship
between L1 and L2. We, as future teachers, have to be completely clear on the nature of both L1
and L2 to know whether L2 will be a complement of L1 or it will be a bunch of brand new
structures that the student will have to assimilate from scratch.
To conclude with Cook we noticed that, at the bottom of page 6, he made question that
kept us wandering what would it be the answer. Even though it might be rhetorical, we have the
feeling that, if it would have been answered, his example would have been clarified to the reader’s
view.
The problems we have when reading Cook where not such as when we read Nation.
Because, more that theorizing about the grammatical aspects of learning a new language as L2, he
focused on actual problems seen in real classrooms. We think this was a good approach, being
that L2 teachers have that kind of inconvenient all over the world.
The use of L2 in group work or pair work is extremely important for L2 learners being that
it is a chance to make mistakes and to feel free of the pressure of the evaluative view of the
teacher. This is actually mentioned by nation when talking about what have to be the teacher’s
attitude towards student vs. student communication.
Both works where extremely meticulous and well-funded, but being Cook’s more based on
theories, it was harder to feel convinced about it. Nation, on the other hand, dedicated a whole
part of the text to class experiences which gives him more influence within the reader.