SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

GET A SIMILAR PAPER ON; TALENTEDESSAYWRITERS.COM
Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1 The scope of the thesis
Second language acquisition can be simply termed as the process of acquiring or learning a second language. As a discipline, second language acquisition (SLA) discusses that process of acquiring a second language. There are various theories that try to explain the course of acquiring a second language. The goal of this paper id to analyze three of these theories- that is, usage-based theories, universal grammar-based theory, and processability theory.
Persian L1 speakers, just like any other second language learners, do have a problem in acquiring the English article system. Indeed, it can be generalized that any second language learner will experience some difficulties of differing magnitudes in learning different aspects of a second language. Among the problems is attempting to borrow some constructs from the first language, primarily because a sentence constructed in the first language then directly translated into a second language may give a new sentence or even a new meaning altogether.
The chapter contains several sections. Section 1.2 will discuss the theories of SLA mentioned above, 1.3 will discuss The Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis, 1.4 about error analysis, and 1.5 will discuss The Fluctuation Hypothesis. Section 1.6 will talk about The Article Choice Parameter, and lastly, 1.7 will be Summary and Outlook- the structure of the thesis.
1.2 Theories of second language acquisition
This section contains a discussion of some currently prominent theories of second language acquisition, Universal Grammar-based theories, Usage-based theories and Processability theory.
1.2.1 Linguistic Theory/Universal Grammar-based theories
Chomsky’s (1986) Universal Grammar Theory (henceforth UG) explicitly aims to account for how human language acquisition is determined by innate factors, developing the idea that all human beings are born with a comprehensive set of principles and constraints that control the shape that human languages can take. A comparison of various languages reveals that the differences between them can be quite dramatic or subtle and yet significant. In order to explain what is really happening with UG and how human have different languages he provided two concepts: First, the principles concept in which languages differ in restricted ways. For instance, by comparing all the languages in the world, one can discover that there is something which linguists call “structure dependency” and it concerns that all languages have utterances that consist of Noun Phrases (henceforth NP) and Verb Phrases (henceforth VP). Second, the concept of parameters, which indicates languages are different. For instance, the head parameter determines if a language will be right-branching or left-branching. This is how languages become different. As an instance, English is a right-branching language. That is, sentence builds to the right direction, e.g., “Jimbo eats an apple.” Whereas, in Japanese sentences are constructed in reverse order and they would say, “Jimbo an apple eats (ジンボはリンゴを食べる。
じんぼはりんごをたべる。) But, the question is how UG explains this. The answer to this lies in the fact that the human brain has ‘structure dependency’ that develops since childhood when the person begins to receive input from their parents. The brain identifies the language that a child receiving input from is right-branching or left-branching language. That is, the brain knows how to build a sentence. Thus, the idea of UG is that all these universal principles are innate language acquisition devices built into our brains. Also, these parameters are similar to switches in the brain and as a child receive input, and then the brain knows which way to set them.
According to VanPatten and Williams (2014) (henceforth VW), Generative Linguistic Theory is related to the study of how it is possible for the L1 learners to obtain linguistics competence. Also, generative linguistics is the study of the innate capacities which reminds us of the theory that is referred to as an approach to linguistics. As mentioned earlier, the behaviorists suppose that the learning language involves habit formation. In that approach, learning a language is concerning habit formation, and it’s a stimulus response type of relationship. That is, when a child or a person has access to a fair amount of input, negative and positive strengthening then they will emulate and acquire the L1 or L2 they are attempting to acquire. This is the behaviorists’ kind of approach. But Chomsky (1986) challenged Skinners’ (1957) approach to acquisition of L1 by suggesting that, acquiring a language is not a stimulus type of relationship and in fact, by monitoring children he noticed that they were continuously showed new ways of saying utterances and actually by correcting a child several times they kept saying the sentence in a wrong way even though they have never heard anyone to pronounce or say it inaccurately before. The language and not responding to the correction indicates that behavioral strategy is not quite sufficient. These children will acquire the basic structure as their L1 language, and it looks as if something in their brain helps them to do that. Hence, as children acquire their L1 the language expands in an organized way and that language developing called interlanguage. The term “interlanguage” is mental understanding of how language functions. As a matter of fact, interlanguage is a theory of how the grammar of a language works. 
1.2.2 Usage-based theories
The usage-based theories, as discussed by Ellis and Wulff (2014, pp. 75-93), are among the approaches that tend to fulfill two working hypothesis:
 Language learning is majorly based on the exposure of the learners to the second language in use- that is, the input received.
Learners tend to induce the rules of their second language from the input often by employing the cognitive mechanisms that are not exclusive to learning of language, but are general to the cognitive mechanisms in any king of learning.
The authors, as such, focus on some major constructs of the usage-based approaches to the second language acquisition. One of these constructs is constructions that posit that learning of language entails learning of constructions, pairings of form and meaning or function. The construction may be simple morphemes like the ¬–ing of complex ones and abstract syntactic frames like the Verb-Object-Object. The second construct is the associative language learning that holds that the learning of constructs entails learning the association between the form and meaning, or function (Ellis & Wulff, 2014, pp. 75-93). Where this association is more reliable, it becomes easier to learn.
Rational cognitive processing posits that language learning is rational such that the learners’ knowledge of a particular form-meaning pair- that is, at any point in their language development reflects how often and the specific context that the learners have encountered the form-meaning pair. Exemplar-based learning implies that learning of language is largely implicit in that it takes place without the learner’s being conscious awareness. The brain of the learner tends to engage in simple learning mechanisms in the distributional analyzes of the exemplars of a particular form-meaning pair that take into consideration the different characteristics of that exemplar. These considerations include the frequency, king of words and phrases, and the larger contexts that it occurs with (Ellis & Wulff, 2014, pp. 75-93). Lastly, the Emergent Relations and Patterns is a construct that implies that language learning tends to be a gradual process where language emerges as a complex and adaptive system from the interaction between the simple cognitive learning mechanisms and the input.
GET A SIMILAR PAPER ON; TALENTEDESSAYWRITERS.COM
The authors also highlight some of the misunderstandings of the theory, and these include that the connectionism is the new behaviorism. This is to say that the connectionist models cannot explain creativity, and they have no regard for internal representation; and that the cognitive approaches deny the influence of the social factors and motivational aspects, as well as other individual differences between the learners.
1.2.3 Processability Theory
Another SL development theory is the processability theory that lies within the logic that at whichever stage of L2 development the L2 acquirer can produce and understand only those second language linguistic forms that the prevailing language processor state can handle (Pienemann & Lenzing, 2014, pp. 159-179). It becomes, therefore, obligatory to comprehend the structure of language processor and how it handles L2. Kempen and Hoenkamp (1987) and Merrill Garrett (1982) are some of the works that give a description of the processability theory, but these have been overlapped by Levelt (1989) that rest on the following premises:
The processing components tend to operate largely spontaneously and they are not controlled consciously.
The processing is often incremental in that the learner can start to produce an utterance without having planned for it.
The processor output tend to be linear although it may not be charted onto the basic meaning in a linear manner.
 Lastly, the grammatical processing tends to have access to a short time memory storage that holds information pertaining to grammar.
The authors describe the processability hierarchy where, according to them, it is founded on the conception of the handover of grammatical information between and within the phrases in a sentence. The original processability hierarchy as advocated by Pienemann (1998) had the following overview:
No procedure, for example, producing a simple word like ‘yes.'
Procedures of category
Procedures of noun phrase
 Procedure of verb phrase
Procedure of sentence
Procedure of subordinate clause
The basis hypothesis in processability theory is that the L2ers improve their grammatical record following the processability hierarchy and there are two reasons for this:
The hierarchy is ordered implicationally; every procedure tends to be a vital precondition for the following procedure.
The hierarchy tends to mirror the time-course in the generation of language.
The L2er is left with no choice, therefore, but to develop along the hierarchy (Pienemann & Lenzing, 2014, pp. 159-179). More so, the phrases cannot be pulled together without assigning the words to various categories like ‘verb’ or ‘noun’, and the same applies to sentences; they cannot be pulled together without the phrases contained therein.
1.2 The Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis
The Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis (henceforth CAH) claims that the similarities between L1 and L2 pave the way for the learners to learn L2 much easier. However, differences between the two languages make the acquisition process of L2 language difficult. Although CAH seems to be able to explain some language learning problems, it still does not true to this day. For instance, in spite of what the L1 is, L2 learners will learn certain simple grammatical elements in the same order. In addition, when L2 learners make mistakes in their utterances those mistakes cannot always be traced back to their L1 language. It becomes visible that in due course learners are able to identify similarities and differences after they have learned enough amount of the L2. Therefore, they are able to use their cognitive abilities to accept or reject patterns. Thus, CAH is of vital importance for intermediate and proficiency levels than for beginners. In the following section the error analysis will be introduced.
According to Byung-gon (1992, pp. 133-149), the contrastive hypothesis posits that the L1 structure affects the L2acquisition. While the term ‘contrastive hypothesis’ is used to refer to the theory itself, the term ‘contrastive analysis hypothesis’ tend to emphasize on both the theory and the method simultaneously. The linguistic model of CAH is structuralism in that it assumes the presence of a finite strugure of a particular language than can be documented, as well as be compared with another language. Byung-gon (1992, pp. 133-149) also describes three different versions of CAH, and these are strong, weak, and moderate version.
1.3. The Error Analysis
The Error Analysis (henceforth EA) was first applied by Corder (1967) and was intended to describe that the errors of learners are significant to be studied in order to improve and moderate errors. EA in comparison with the CAH has one difference. That is, error analysis does not foresee errors, but instead it looks at the mistakes that learners are making and it tries to give explanation why the learners are making these mistakes. Therefore, scholars believe that the EA gives way for the positive changes in language acquisition and it led to a change from correcting errors to improving and reducing them. This is summarized by Magnan (1983) in the following words:
“…we now view language learning as a series of stages or interlanguages, and errors as positive evidence that learners are experimenting with linguistic rules in order to progress from one interlanguage stage to the next” (p. 383)
According to Khansir (2012, pp. 1027-1032), errors form an integral part of learning language. A learner learning the English language as an L2 is often unaware that there exists a given system or rule in the English language. As such, the primaryrole of error analysis is to give a description of how learning takes place often by examining the output of the learner that may include both correct and incorrect utterances (Khansir, 2012). The Error Analysis cannot be studied alone and it is often studied alongside the CAH. Below are the words of Corder (1967):
“A leaner's errors then, provide evidence of the system of the language that he is using...they are significant in three different ways. First to the teacher, in that they tell him, if he undertakes a systematic analysis, how far towards the goal the leaner has progressed...Second, they provide the researchers with evidence of how language is leaned or acquired...Thirdly they are indispensable to the leaner himself because he can regard the making of error as a device used in order to learn.”
1.4 The Fluctuation Hypothesis
The Fluctuation Hypothesis (henceforth FH) was coined by Ionin (2003) and was intended to address article overuse in L2 acquisition. It stated that L2 learners’ errors in their article choice swung between the definite and the indefinite [indefinite-non-specific] and [indefinite-specific] contexts. The FH was acknowledged by L2 learners with no article systems in their L1 languages e.g., Russian and Korean. In fact, Ionin (2003: 23) addressed that the parameter settings which do not exist in L1 and L2 were accessible for L2 learners, as Broselow and Finer (1986) showed. Also, L2 learners’ behavior proposed that their parameter setting choice sometimes fluctuate. That is, sometimes they adopted one of the settings and sometimes another.
The Fluctuation Hypothesis assumes that the L2 learners do have a full access the Universal Grammar (UG) properties that include those that are not instantiated in their first language grammars. This is indeed contrary to Hawkins and Chan (1997) Failed Functional Feature Hypothesis currently being used as Representational Deficit Hypothesis (Hawkins and Francheschina (2004) that proposes that learners fail to acquire uninterpretable features if they are not in their L1.
1.5 The Article Choice Parameter
This thesis proposes that n English articles can mark definiteness or specificity cross-linguistically. Specificity can be defined as the speaker’s intention to refer to a particular entity, whereas definiteness refers to the entity which is familiar, know to the speaker and the hearer. A definite noun takes the definite article (i.e., the), while indefinite noun refers to an entity which is unfamiliar, new or it is not identified by the hearer can take the indefinite article (i.e., a/an) in singular and zero article in plural. The article choice system in English is complex. Therefore, article rules cannot be summarized as simple rules. This complexity makes it more difficult for L2 learners to mark the definiteness or specificity during the acquisition process of article system in English. Another complexity in the acquisition of the English article system is that different languages have different article systems. Some languages e.g. Persian has a system with two indefinite articles, a definite object marker and plural marker, while English has both a definite and an indefinite article. The Article Choice Parameter (henceforth ACP) rests on the facts that some languages distinguish between definite and indefinites, whereas other languages distinguish between specific and non-specific. The Persian language which makes use of the specific feature is one of the examples for this.
Various studies have been done on this topic, but each study with different outcomes. While some of the studies hold on to the belief that the L2ers do not have complete access to Universal Grammar, other hold onto the belief that the L2 learners have complete access to the UG. Bley-Vroman’s (1990) is one of the linguists that believe that the learners does not have a complete access to UG, Ionin (2003) believes in the contrary. In the full-access-full transfer-hypothesis as in (Schwartz & Sprouse 1994, 1996), the L2 learners allocate their first language grammar in the initial state of acquisition of second language, but their interlanguage is often categorized in terms of UG constraints different from those in first language. In case of full-access and no-transfer, the preliminary state of L2 is not the first language. Ionin uses her studies on the Russians and Koreans to prove that the learners do have complete access to the UG. Most importantly, she indicates that these acquirers without articles in their first language will oscillate between two constraints in their article choice in the English language.  These will be the definiteness parameter that is present in the L2 grammar and the specificity parameters.
GET A SIMILAR PAPER ON; TALENTEDESSAYWRITERS.COM