Negative Transfer

Many popular theories of second language acquisition have been analyzed throughout history. The socialization of L2 learners, their present emotional state that is present at time of acquisition, as well as the comprehensible input and output with the use of scaffolding play a major role in second language acquisition. Let us also not forget the importance of written expression as well as reading comprehension with these L2 learners. Each play a role in language development. However, I believe that in acquiring a language, one must use a variety of techniques that work together to create a balance within the learning environment. Furthermore, all L2 learners learn differently and so a variety of resources will need to be used based on the ability of each student. There are many theories that have been developed by highly qualified experts in the field on linguistics. However, I will address those areas that I agree with as I present my personal theories on second language acquisition.

Cunningham (2003) remarks “While there may indeed be some negative effects from using translation,… there is a place in the learning environment for translation. With careful application aimed at specific goals and situations, translation can contribute to the students' acquisition of the target language, at all levels.” According to this, there are different situations in which students are more comfortable by using L1. While there are clear advantages on the communicative approach, not every student feels on a “safety” environment to apply their L2 knowledge, and by giving them the chance to have a transition from both languages, they feel that they have something to more familiar – native language – to rely

Lastly, it is important to include Norm Chomsky every time we talk about language acquisition. Through his studies we can say that children can learn a new language because of their innate ability in their brain to be able to classify different words, specifically grammatical terms. He suggested that we have a device in our brain which he called a Language Acquisition Device that allows children to notice the differences between two languages. In my opinion if all of us have this device. All the child needs to stimulate it to be able to learn those important first words that a child is going to need as they further exposed into a language.

According to the study of Alba, Logan, Lutz and Stults (2002), this three-generation model of language shift was documented

Since, the second language is an additional language after we acquire the first language, the L2 learning process can be influenced by the L1 learning process This essay will demonstrate the similarities and differences in L1 and L2 acquisition by discussing various theories. Then, draw a conclusion based on the evidence provided and my own experience.

Many second language acquisition theories have been developed over the years. These theories examine the avenues in which second language is acquired and the avenues in which they are

L1 Learners in the native language environment, people in this environment are native speakers. For acquisition of L1, child learners have no pressure and competition. They do not worry about the level of mother tongue reached, because they are native speakers. In contrast, most of L2 learners rarely in such language environment, they are often in a highly competitive, stressful learning environment. They are learning another language in the first language environment. Moreover, L2 learners study language in the classroom, not a best language learning environment. For example, most of the Chinese students learn English in junior school or high school. Except of their weekly English class, students do not have a good foreign language environment. L1learners can learn language anywhere, and actual use first language, they learned the language in the real life. Most of L2 learners lack the regular practice, so they have to learn by rote.

The first stage in the L2 development is the home language stage. In this stage the home language or L1, is used by the child in the classroom along with their peers and adults. Now this does not tend to last, since children realize that there the communication is not successful. The next period is the nonverbal period, where children begin to acquired the second language receptively, so there is little to no language being spoken by the child. Gestures are more than likely used during this period in order to communicate until they are able to learn a certain amount of words from the second language. The third stage is the period of telegraphic and formulaic use. This is where imitation comes into play, as children use single words in order

“Any realistic account of language acquisition must take into account the manner in which the child passes from pre-speech communication to the use of language proper (Brunner, 1974–1975)”.

A behaviorist view treats language learning as environmentally determined, controlled from outside by what learners are exposed to and the reinforcement they receive. In contrast, mentalist theories emphasize the importance of the learner’s ‘black box’ in their memory. They maintain that learners’ brains are especially equipped to learn language and all that is needed is minimal exposure to input in order to trigger acquisition (Ellis, 1997). On the whole, input is absolutely necessary and there is no theory or approach to SLA that does not recognize the importance of input and making sure that it is comprehensible. In Schwartz’s view (1993), the input feeds or nurtures an innate system to aid its growth. But input alone cannot facilitate second language learning. It will not function to the full in SLA until it gets involved in interaction. Input processing is just as important because it aims to offer an explanation as to how L2 learners process input, how they make form-meaning connections and how they map syntactic structures onto the utterance.

The first area of difference between first (L1) and second (L2) language learning is input – specifically the quality and quantity of input. It is the idea of the "connectionist model that implies... (that the) language learning process depends on the input frequency and regularity" (5).. It is here where one finds the greatest difference between L1 and L2 acquisition. The quantity of exposure to a target language a child gets is immense compared to the amount an adult receives. A child hears the language all day everyday, whereas an adult learner may only hear the target language in the classroom – which could be as little as three hours a week. Even if one looks at an adult in a total submersion situation the quantity is still less because the amount of one on one interaction that a child gets for example with a parent or other caregiver is still much greater then the adult is receiving.

Learning a new language has many benefits; career advancement, bridging communication gaps, and strengthening life skills. “What theory implies, quite simply, is that language acquisition, first or second, occurs when comprehension of real messages occurs, and when the acquire is not ‘on the defensive’” wrote Steven D. Krashner (1981)

According to Houmanfar, Hayes, and Herbst (2005), the first and second languages are interrelated and the history of the first language is a participatory factor in the acquisition of the second language (L2) and its maintenance. The Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis indicates that the structure and shape of the L1 of an individual are different from those the L2 that could create errors in speaking, reading and writing (Dulay et al., 1982). Similarities and differences between L1 and L2 acquisition will be outlined in terms of various theories.

When discussing about “In other words”, Bialystok and Hakuta state that there is some thought that children who may appear to be learning a second languge very quickly at a vey young age (before the age of 5). They further state that accompanied by the loss of their first language, have really replaced the first language with the second language.

The latter coined the term “interlanguage” in Selinker (1972). The term is used fairly loosely among numerous scholars to mean, differently, what the learner is able to do at any point after embarking on learning L2. Ellis (1994:710) defines interlanguage as the total profile of all the learner’s performance stages from the initial stages of learning L2 until reaching a native like production. Interlanguage is an imperative system essentially the same in the case of all learners regardless of their mother tongue, displaying a number of rules and patterns consistently found at any given stage, heedless of the L1 and the methods followed in the learning the target