The Research Of Second Language Acquisition ( Sla )

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.

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 motivation are essential in learning the language. The First Language Acquisition is thus the result of nature which based on practicing.

Lakoff and Johnson propose that the language we use affects the way we think and the way we think affects the language we use. I am

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 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.

There are a growing number of researchers that have begun to question the exclusion of the L1 from the L2 classroom (Turnbull, 2001; Macaro, 2001; Van Lier, 1995). However, many teachers are still resistant to use the L1 in foreign language learning. According to Cook (2001) & Van Lier (1995), one reason for this teacher

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.

Vocabulary learning is no longer the Cinderella of the field of second language acquisition (SLA) research. Since the early 1980s, research on second language vocabulary learning has taken a prominent role in the field of SLA. Previously, learning a language was heavily based on learning grammar rules, which learners have to follow and understand in order to use correct grammatical sentences. As a result, that has led to a neglect of learning vocabulary as there was an assumption that vocabulary can be learned through communication and can take care of itself (Meara, 1980; Maiguaschca, 1993).

There is only one reason could be considered why learners decide to use L1 in the classroom. This is because the teacher’s efforts encourage them to communicate in the target language. Harmer (2002) maintains that the second language users choose to use the mother tongue when there is no compatible with their L2 level. When the teacher does not create an environment for students to communicate naturally to use English, students may need to use L1 to communicate. If the teacher does not use the target language too much so that students may feel free to use their mother tongue in the second language classroom. Thus, some different learning styles can be implemented that enable students to use the target language much more easily.

Language acquisition is one of the main characteristics of human development; it is an essential tool for humans to communicate with one another. First Language (L1) acquisition refers to person’s natural acquisition of their mother tongue. Second language (L2) acquisition is learning another language after a first language is already been learnt. Through research it has been found that children acquiring their first language will initially listen to language they are exposed to, further develop the skills through discovery then implement it in their daily interaction with others.

The question of what in the input guides learners forward throughout interlanguage development (Young-Scholten & Piske, 2009) has fueled empirical investigations in Second Language Acquisition (SLA) for decades. Such interest over the strength of second language (L2) input gets transpired into a variety of research

The language acquisition process is disparate between first language and foreign language. In this essay, we are going to investigate how they are different from each other on several aspects: phonology, semantics, syntax and pragmatics.

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