Second language acquisition


Published on

Published in: Education, Technology
  • You did a great presentation. Clear information.
    Greetings from Colombia, South America.
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • I enjoyed this slide. The information presented was very clear.
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • As a starting point, I looked at definitions of the Critical period Hypothesis. Sharon Bennell EFL 501 Research Presentation
  • Having read the Critical period Hypothesis, three questions came to mind that I wanted to clarify. Sharon Bennell EFL 501 Research Presentation
  • In order to look further into the impact of age upon second language acquisition, I had the opposite problem to a lot of people, too much information. I decided to narrow my research and focus on four main areas. Morphosyntax – so that I would at least understand a little bit more about grammar as an aid to understanding Denis’ class on a Tuesday night! Mainly, I knew that I would be going into school in January and that a lot of the students I would be teaching would already be half way, if not through puberty. Representations and processing of second language words - was the research paper I chose to review earlier in the semester. It provided an interesting insight into SLA and how ELL’s develop dual meaning systems for words, depending upon how old they are at the time of learning their second language. Phonology and accent – I chose because it appeared to be the most troublesome aspect of SLA. Actually, it just turned out to be the most noticeable. Universal Grammar – again as an attempt to understand Denis’ class, but also to learn more about how important schooling in L1 was to SLA. Sharon Bennell EFL 501 Research Presentation
  • Sharon Bennell EFL 501 Research Presentation
  • Second language acquisition

    1. 1. Second Language Acquisition And Applied Linguistics
    2. 2. Two sisters at School
    3. 3. Characters <ul><li>Nazma </li></ul><ul><li>Naseem </li></ul><ul><li>Mrs. Raja </li></ul><ul><li>Zakkia </li></ul>
    4. 4. Attitudes <ul><li>Feelings – affective conditions </li></ul><ul><li>Loneliness – trying to understand </li></ul><ul><li>Nazma does not interact (Lge) Mrs. Raja </li></ul>
    5. 5. Education <ul><li>What is Education? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Share knowledge </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Children learning </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Parents support </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Provoking </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Tradition </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Legislation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Policy </li></ul></ul>
    6. 6. Characteristics <ul><li>Language use – socialization – cultural experiences </li></ul><ul><li>Learning at home </li></ul><ul><ul><li>School level </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Role of their grand mother </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Tv’s role </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Qur’anic-Qur’an </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Urdu (official lge in Pakistan) Literacy practices </li></ul></ul>
    7. 7. LANGUAGE ACQUISITION <ul><li>We are designed to walk… That we are taught to walk is impossible. And pretty much the same is true of language. Nobody is taught language. In fact you can’t prevent the child from learning it. </li></ul><ul><li>Noam Chomsky, The Human Language Serie 2 (1994) </li></ul>
    8. 8. LANGUAGE ACQUISITION <ul><li>Language is extremely complex </li></ul><ul><li>Children before 5 already know the complex system that make up the grammar of a language: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Syntactic </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Phonological </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Morphological </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Semantic and pragmatic rules of grammar </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Children acquire a system of rules that enables them to construct and understand sentences, most of them have never produced or heard before. </li></ul><ul><li>Children are creative in the use of language </li></ul><ul><li>Nobody teach grammatical rules to the children </li></ul>
    9. 9. Critical period hypothesis <ul><li>Brown (2007) defines CPH as . . . </li></ul><ul><li>“ a biological timetable during which, both first & second language is more successfully accomplished”. </li></ul><ul><li>Ellis (1997) defines CPH as . . . </li></ul><ul><li>a period during which “target-language competence in an L2 can only be achieved if learning commences before a certain age is reached. (e.g. the onset of puberty)” </li></ul>
    10. 10. Am I past it? <ul><li>If established theory states that L2 language acquisition is not achievable beyond puberty, what’s the point in trying? </li></ul><ul><li>If L2 is not achievable beyond puberty, how was I able to learn my second language at the age of 34? </li></ul><ul><li>Does Ellis’ (1997) definition hold the key, that competence in L2 is what theorists are really arguing? </li></ul>
    11. 11. Research <ul><li>Age and Different aspects of SLA: morphosyntax . Singleton (1995) </li></ul><ul><li>The effect of age on SLA on the representations and processing of second language words . Silverberg& Samuel (2004) </li></ul><ul><li>Phonology & Accent : </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Pronunciation revisited (Pennington, M & Richards J.C. (1986) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Phonological Basis of a Foreign Accent, a Hypothesis. (Flege, J.E. (1981) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>On the adults ability to acquire phonology. (Neufeld, G.G. 1980) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Is there an age factor in Universal Grammar ? (Martohardjono, G & Flynn, S. 1993) </li></ul>
    12. 12. Conclusions <ul><li>Age is a factor to consider in second language acquisition. </li></ul><ul><li>Age should not be a deterrent to learning a second language. </li></ul><ul><li>Grammar, and its mastery, is possible in all languages and at all ages, but is more easily mastered during childhood. </li></ul><ul><li>Accent is the most prominent determiner of age of L2 acquisition. </li></ul>
    13. 13. AN INNATIST MODEL: KRASHEN’S INPUT HYPOTHESIS <ul><li>The Acquisition – Learning Hypothesis </li></ul><ul><li>- Adult second language learners have two means for internalizing the target language </li></ul><ul><li> The first is “acquisition”, a subconscious and intuitive process of constructing the system of a language, not unlike the process used by a child to “pick up’’ a language. </li></ul><ul><li> The second means is a conscious “learning” process in which learners attend to form, figure out rules, and are generally aware of their own process. </li></ul>
    14. 14. AN INNATIST MODEL: KRASHEN’S INPUT HYPOTHESIS <ul><li>The Acquisition – Learning Hypothesis </li></ul><ul><li>“ Fluency in second language performance is due to what we have acquired, not what we have learned.” </li></ul><ul><li>Our conscious learning processes and our subconscious acquisition processes are mutually exclusive: learning cannot “become” acquisition. </li></ul>
    15. 15. AN INNATIST MODEL: KRASHEN’S INPUT HYPOTHESIS <ul><li>5. The Affective Filter Hypothesis </li></ul><ul><li>- The best acquisition will occur in environments where anxiety is low and defensiveness absent, or in contexts where “affective filter” is low. </li></ul>
    16. 16. The cognitive model of Second Language Acquisition Focus to a considerable extent of the learners IV. A SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIVIST MODEL: LONG’S INTERACTION HYPOTHESIS Two preceding theories Krashen’s Input Hypothesis
    17. 17. A SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIVIST MODEL: LONG’S INTERACTION HYPOTHESIS <ul><li>The Social constructivist perspectives emphasize the dynamic nature of the interplay between learners, their peers and their teachers and others with whom they interact </li></ul><ul><li>The interaction between learners and others is the focus of observation and explanation </li></ul>
    18. 18. A SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIVIST MODEL: LONG’S INTERACTION HYPOTHESIS <ul><li>Michael Long (1985-1996) takes up where in a sense Krashen left off. He posits in what has come to be called the interaction hypothesis , that comprehensive input is the result of modified interaction . </li></ul>
    19. 19. Theories and Models of SLA INNATIST COGNITIVE CONSTRUCTIVIST (Krashen) (McLauglin/Bialystok) (Long) <ul><li>Subconcious acquisition superior to “learning” & “mornitoring” </li></ul><ul><li>Comprehensible input (i+1) </li></ul><ul><li>Low affective filter </li></ul><ul><li>Natural order of acquisition </li></ul><ul><li>“ zero option” for grammar instruction </li></ul><ul><li>Controlled/ automatic processing (McL) </li></ul><ul><li>Focal/pheripheral attention (McL) </li></ul><ul><li>Restructuring (McL) </li></ul><ul><li>Implicit vs. explicit (B) </li></ul><ul><li>Unanalyzed vs. analyzed knowledge(B) </li></ul><ul><li>Form-focused instruction </li></ul><ul><li>Interaction hypothesis </li></ul><ul><li>Intake through social interaction </li></ul><ul><li>Output hypothesis (Swain) </li></ul><ul><li>HIGs (Seliger) </li></ul><ul><li>Authenticity </li></ul><ul><li>Task-based instruction </li></ul>