AN ANALYSIS OF THE ROLE OF FIRST LANGUAGE IN SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

INTRODUCTION

The language which is acquired during early childhood starting before the age of about 3

years is first language (Sinha, Banerjee, Sinha, & Shastri, 2009).First language has different

names such as, mother tongue, native language and primary language (Sinha et al., 2009).A

second language acquisition is needed for education, employment and other purposes, and it is

typically an official or societal language (e.g. English).

The knowledge of one or more languages contributes in learning any additional

languages (Lightbown & Spada, 2013). L2 learners who have strong linguistic backgrounds in

their L1, overcomes frustrating experiences in their L2 development. Apart from regulating

psychological activities, L1 helps to externalize thoughts in L2 (Antón & Dicamilla, 1999).

Rodriguez, Carrasquillo, and Lee (2014) opine, “students’ acquire most of their conceptual and

academic knowledge and skills through the native language, which provides the foundation for

completing academic tasks”. Therefore, L1 influences psychological and linguistic readiness for

L2 learning as well as affects students’ academic success.

Even though the role of L1 in L2 development is important, the right equilibrium of using

L1 as a resource in L2 development processes is crucial. Freeman and Freeman (2009) argue,

“the general public and, in fact, most educators believe that more English equals more English,

when the truth is the opposite. More first-language knowledge equals more English’’. Since

acquiring L1 prepares learners to learn any additional language, the research attention should be

given to how effectively L1 can be used in L2 development. Additionally, as L2 learners transfer

knowledge already learned in their L1 into their L2 due to cross-linguistic influences, Rodriguez,

Carrasquillo, and Lee (2014) recommend for “using concepts and content students already know
in their first language to create bridge to learning new language structures” . Therefore, using

content in L2 classrooms, which is learnt in L1, can benefit both content knowledge and

language skills. However, extensive use of L1 in L2 classrooms will negatively influences L2

development.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

This research focuses on the role of first language in second language acquisition. For the

purpose of this study I would favour Krashen’s Natural Approach to second language

acquisition. Krashen’s Monitor Theory (MT) was the first theory to be developed specifically for

SLA and was developed by Stephen Krashen in the 1970s and early 1980s. It is connected to

Chomsky’s Universal Grammar Theory, which views humans as having a specific faculty for

language learning, that is, humans are born with linguistic knowledge. The processes that a child

goes through while acquiring the L1 are basically the same processes that L2 learners had to go

through. Language in general is not learned, it is acquired. Learning refers to obtaining explicit

knowledge about the language in terms of grammatical rules. Acquired knowledge is believed to

be implicit knowledge (i.e., language knowledge that we have that lies outside of our conscious

awareness, like our knowledge about not contracting across traces). As a result, acquiring a

second language is being able at some point in the acquisition process to be as natural as L1

acquisition. Spontaneous use of language is not a result of form that is explicitly taught and

practiced. It is a result of plentiful, comprehensible input (input that is understood) and

interaction that is focused on meaning.

One of the central constructs of MT is the Input Hypothesis. The Input Hypothesis

explains that the only way humans’ acquire language is by receiving comprehensible input.
According to MT, humans acquire language in only one way-by understanding the message in

the L2 or as Krashen points out, by receiving comprehensible input. This comprehensible in

contains language slightly above the current level of the learner’s level of internalized language

(i+1). In defining comprehensible input, Krashen introduces two more constructs: i, which is

defined as a learner’s current level of proficiency and i+1, which is a level just beyond the

learner’s current level. The +1 is difficult to determine, but can be estimated by the teacher.

Krashen considers input that is i+1 to be the most valuable data for SLA. Krashen specifies that

roughly tuned input will automatically include several levels of input including i, i+1, and

probably i-1 and i+2, etc. To be more explicit as long as a teacher or a native speaker does not

speak very quickly and does not use complex language to a low level learner, the presence of

comprehensible input will be available to the learner. L2 learners will naturally access and use

the language allowing the acquisition to take place spontaneously as long as they are exposed to

rich and comprehensible input. This is most likely to occur when communication is focused on

meaning rather than form. This means instruction is not only about grammatical rules but output

(production). Production is considered the result rather than the cause of acquisition. Forcing

learners to produce before they are ready can inhibit the acquisition process by taking the

learner’s focus away from comprehension and processing of input. Krashen asserted that

comprehensible input is a critical aspect of SLA acquisition (Krashen 1981, 1982, 1985).

According to MT theory a large amount of comprehensible input combined with a learner’s

innate language faculty is all humans need to acquire a language. Krashen asserts that the

learners will naturally access what they need in SLA through comprehensible input. They will

just figure it out, without error correction. In fact, error correction and high anxiety can influence

the affective filter (high to low anxiety levels) and prevent comprehensible input (Krashen 1982).
A learner’s output (production of language), however, is considered insignificant when acquiring

a language. Output is only the result of acquisition not the cause. Output that is above a learner’s

acquisition level should not be forced because it can inhibit acquisition (VanPatten 1998).

According the Krashen (1985) it is extremely important for learners to be comfortable with their

learning environment. L2 learners in a comfortable learning environment will have better access

to input in general. In an environment where the L2 learners are forced to produce language,

acquisition is inhibited. According to Krashen the affective filter can help explain the variable

outcome of SLA across language learners.

Antón, M., & Dicamilla, F. J. (1999). Socio-cognitive functions of L1 collaborative interaction in

the L2 classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 83(2), 233-247.

Freeman, Y., & Freeman, D. (2009). Academic language for English language learners and

struggling readers: How to help students succeed across content areas. Portsmouth, NH:

Heinemann.

Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford:

Pergamon.

Krashen, S. D., & Terrell, T. D. (1983). The natural approach: Language acquisition in the

classroom. Oxford: Pergamon.

Lightbown, P. M. & Spada, N. (2013). How languages are learned (4th ed.). Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Rodriguez, D., Carrasquillo, A., & Lee, K. S. (2014). The bilingual advantage: Promoting

academic development, biliteracy, and native language in the classroom. New York and

London: Teachers College Press.

Sinha, A., Banejee, N., Sinha, A., & Shastri, R. (2009). Interference of first language in the

acquisition of second language. Journal of Psychology And Counseling, 1(7), 117-122.

STUDY OF DELTA STATE UNIVERSITY, ABRAKA, DELTA STATE.

INTRODUCTION

The Internet can be viewed in a variety of ways. At its simplest, it is the

interconnection of hundreds of thousands of local networks, 'the mother of all networks',

the mechanism which allows one computer to exchange information with another,

whatever the type of computer or its physical location. Yet there are many other ways of

understanding the Internet. It can be seen as one of the 'mass media' similar to

newspapers, radio and TV, but with the crucial difference that it has been, from the start,

a digital medium, whereas other media are only slowly moving from analogue to digital.

It can be thought of too as a vast repository of information, a global CD-ROM of

unlimited capacity. Or it can be viewed as a communications network, similar to the

international telephone network, which people use to exchange data or simply speak to

each other. However the Internet is viewed, it is an extraordinary phenomenon.

It involves using electronic media information and communication technologies

in education. The internet can be seen in nearly all types of educational technology in

either learning or teaching. The internet is enriched with various types of media that

delivers text, audio, image animation and streaming videos. It also includes technology

applications and process such as audio, video tape, and streaming video. E-learning can

happen in or out of classroom or the learning context. It can be self-paced, with the help

of instructor, synchronous or asynchronous. E-learning is well suited for distance

learning and is flexible for different learning situations. E-learning can be in agreement

with face to face teachings.

The focus of this research is the use of internet to promote second language teaching. For

the purpose of this study, I will favour the Vygotsky’s theory of social constructivism. Vygotsky

(1978) in his social constructivism provides a foundation for argumentative, reflective and

collaborative activities in technology enhanced learning environments (Blake and Scanlon,

2008). With regard to this, it is expected that learners will be able to undertake responsibilities

for their own learning, be active in their courses and construct knowledge meaningfully.

Moreover, the learners are provided with the opportunities to construct knowledge by

interpreting and analyzing in computerized learning environments. Most of the recent researches

are practices in education by considering the importance of information and communications

technologies. The use of computers is the most well-known and popular tool in educational

context compared with all other kinds of technologies. In contemporary teaching and learning

education, computer-assisted instruction takes an important role (Chang, 2001).

The use of internet for English language teaching requires certain conditions such as cognitive

and socio-affective. Regarding cognitive conditions, learners should be exposed to a range of

target structures which are within the learner’s grasp, have opportunities to express their meaning

in different ways and develop towards the dimensions of fluency, accuracy and complexity, draw

their attention to the meaning and structure of the target language and be able to track their

progress (Chapelle, 2001). In addition, the social and affective aspects of learning should be

taken into consideration concentrating on the learner’s ‘willingness to communicate’ (MacIntyre,

Clément, Dörneyei & Noels, 1998). Thus, the activities should encourage social interaction and

collaboration in order to provide opportunities for communication.

Blake, C. & Scanlon, E. (2008). Reconsidering simulations in science education at a distance:

features of effective use. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23, pp. 491-502.

Chang, C. Y. (2001). Comparing the impacts of a problem-based computer-assisted instruction

and the direct-interactive teaching method on student science achievement. Journal of

Science Education and Technology, 10(2), 147-153.

Chapelle, C. (2001) Computer Applications in Second Language Acquisition: foundations for

teaching, testing and research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Macintyre, P. D., Clément, R., Dörnyei, Z. and Noels, K. A. (1998) Conceptualizing willingness

to communicate in a L2: a situational model of L2 confidence and affiliation. The

Modern Language Journal, 82: 545–62.

Vygostky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The development of higher psychological processes.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.