SLA FINAL

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SLA FINAL

Input is among the most significant elements in the steps of second language acquisition. According to Gass (1997), he states that second language learning may not happen with some form of input. This has been supported by a number of researches with not regard to theoretical methods. Adding onto this understanding, precise matters have been discussed like how the input is processed during the second language acquisition and how it is added into the learner’s inter-language model, the size of input that is required to make acquisition possible, the varied aspects of input and the manner that they may manage or block acquisition. Ultimately, the instructional techniques which may develop input to advance acquisition like input enhancement, recasts and processing plans.

These elements have brought about several aspects of study, though first one has to know about the whole understanding of the manner the input is added into the grammar as noted in the first aspect. A series of insights have brought about focus in the input processing as with what is produced as well as contrasting aspects and frameworks.

Not every data in the learner’s setting may be acquired and applied in creating the learner’s grammar bringing about one issue and the aspect and condition that would make it possible for the change of input into intake as has been with the research. A common agreement in the field of second language acquisition is what the input learners are able to apply for advancement reasons will rely on the prevailing state of expertise.

Another primary understanding for second language acquisition researchers is that input is changed into intake; learners apply this resource for two reasons; comprehension and acquisition. This is vital form building the theory and empirical insights. Learners have the natural inclination to know linguistic input for purpose of acquiring successful communication. Though the form of processing-for-meaning is not similar of enough to what is needed for acquisition, which involves the forming of new frameworks. Based on Swain’s (1985) study of a French program, it showed that with regard to communicative and comprehensible input solely, learners would be able to acquire native proficiency in their understanding. Though their proficiency and accuracy in creation is gradual and below that of native speakers considering the time of exposure. Swain offers backing that comprehensible input does not necessarily bring about acquisition. The lack of comprehensible learning, learners would not be in a position to create necessary form-meaning interface for acquisition to take place.

Reacting to Corder’s (1967) in look and noting that the application of the word input has commonly been irregular in the field of second language acquisition; Chaudron’s (1985) model is shown first since it offers a procedural model that is parallel with other models. With a close look at this model, further questions may be acquired and clarification found in other models. The models applied by Chaudron was acquired since they subscribe to a modular, nativist aspect on acquisition, in the linguistic processing is attributed special from other forms of learning and served by linguistic-centered processor. This contrast the connectionist method, where input is primarily termed to as tokens for weights and frequency and through which statistical-based constructions come about.

There are three intake stages, there is the preliminary intake where input is perceived, the subsequent stage where recording and encoding of semantic data in long term memory and finally, there is the final intake where learners completely integrate information in the input so as to advance grammar. For the preliminary and subsequent intake stages, there was the creation of the first language data processing. In information processing, a neutral and bottom-up signal process is applied, where audio aspect detectors acquire speech signals process occurs as neutral impulses and assess them according to the hindrances developed in the detectors. The evaluated input is then kept in short-term place, where policies and other skills are acquired from long term memory to interpret the filtered signal and to synthesis into their relevant classes.

After this comprehension in the starting two stages, learners are able to go on to the third stage where their grammar is modeled and advanced. Through an understanding of the input using competence and linguistic skills, learners are able to note the gap in the current grammar and input that would start to trigger the next stage in development. It is after noting the gap does the learner’s inner language acquisition device begin applying these new aspects to create rules and undertake hypothesis testing (VanPatten, 1996). After the rule has been created, the learner’s output creation and response they acquire would act as a basis of testing and revise the rules, it is with enough testing and confirmation that the new rule is added into the learner’ grammar.

In the three stage conceptualization, the Chaudron offers an insight into the input-processing and sense of departure for more insight. He evoked the belief of automatic and managed processing to state the quality of processing in the primary and secondary stage. The controlled process is flexible and wide to explicit training. This means that the learner is left open to conscious manipulation which is acquired by repetition. This is bound to acquire significance. There are though other aspects that do not back this. It is brought forward that the central process has to be applied before a model is used. It is a hidden process that occurs in the inner part of LAD.

Observation # 1: In this model, Sharwood Smith (1986) looked into an in-depth on the acquisition matter of input processing, which is closer to the Chaudron (1985) aspect of final intake and passed through the initial signal process. Consensus was acquired with Chaudron’s notion in the mental comparisons. Smith’s five stages of acquisition begin with learners making contrasts in the semantic representation and the meaning. In the second stage, the learners change their semantic representations when they compare the sets of representations. In the third stage, the learners acquire surface model from the changed semantic representation, by the application of rules in the grammar. In the fourth stage, the learners compare the prior surface with the emerging one and take note of discrepancy. Lastly, learners remodel the prevailing competence model to the changed semantic representation that may be acquired from the surface model met in the future. In the process of this five stage operation, the Universal Grammar and learners know-how may be used and mediate the whole procedure.

The Chaudron and Smith model both insist on the derivation of the meaning prior to acquisition. The lack of comprehension of the messages, learners may not be able to go ahead with the initial step of comparing semantic representation. It is in this aspect that Smith advanced the application of rich and complicated input as opposed to simplified input. This is so that the leaners would be in a good position of utilizing the extra-language sues, that are present in the language setting, to acquire semantic representation the moment the current is not able to uphold a complete understanding (Schmidt, 1990). Comprehensible is not enough and acquisition may disintegrate several reasons.

In the input processing model, there are a number of point where processing for acquisition may be disintegrated. First of all if there lacks known spaces in the semantic representation, even with contrasts being present, the learners would not attend to it. This is composed of depth assessment and attention. There is similarly the synthesis in acquisition where there is a danger in learners making a wrong mapping. Here is where repeated presence is vital for the tuning accurately the representations and hypothesis. Lastly, there is no assurance that the learners would move on to the third stage. Of the competence is not enough to acquire the right semantic representation in the initial stage, how will the learners be able to acquire new surface model from their incomplete competence for more comparison.

Observation # 2: Gass’s (1997) model of SLA is composed of the same process as Chaudron and Smith models with a process of apperceived input, comprehended input, intake, integration and output. There was a finer variation in the processes. A certain level of recognition and selection has been acquired due to attention. Gauss insists on the relevance of negotiated interaction in the input process an acquisition. The failure in the communicative interaction presses learners to negotiate for meaning. In the art of clarification and elaboration for understanding, learners then acquire more an applicable input; attention may be acquired to precise problematic aspects in the L2. As a result, interaction elevates the possibility for learners to make mental comparisons in the IL and L2 in the same aspect as stated by Smith. In the negotiated interaction, the input is developed in three manners. The first one is more comprehensible and a pre-requisite of the IL advancement. The second aspect creates the impede understanding that are formed and impressed upon and made to process to acquire successful communication. The third, by application of negotiation, learners acquire the good and bad response that gotten from the problematic form and influences the hypothesis testing and revision (Anny, 2008). The Gauss model, in terms of the input processing method, it should be termed to as a facilitator and not a mode of learning.

Summarily, the models assessed agree on the significance of comprehensible input. The learners have to decode enough of the input to form conceptual representation, using linguistic model that may be acquired from competence and compared with the external and apperceive models. There similarly has to be incomprehensible input- that brings about a mental affliction in processing. If everything had been well acquired, the learners would not acquire the forms and acquisition of missing models. The learner’s focus is then directed to the IL representation and external representation that would bring about acquisition.

 

Universal Grammar Theory

Linguitic theory accords a structure for linguistic competence for native speakers; it may have the ability to offer an attribute of non-native competence. There is the basis of research tendencies that are engaged in SLA from the producing aspect. The language aspect if the L2 learners are systematic and policy based (White, 1990). The L2 learners have the ability of making the right rejections by the application of positive evidence, sentences that are not right grammatically or not allowed by the Universal Grammar systems since they are not consistent with the learner’s L1 language.

Universal Grammar is a characterization of the child’s pre-linguistic prior stage. It involves a mode of principles with aspects to be fixed with the peripheral exceptions. The main grammar is composed of a set of universal rules that are used in a number of languages and a number of aspects that contrast from one language to another. On the other hand, the peripheral grammar is composed of irregular language. The theory of Universal Grammar is composed of two form settings:

It has to be compatible with the diversity of present grammars. Similarly, the Universal Grammar has to be sufficiently hindered and restrictive in the choices it allows so as to acquire the fact that every of these grammar grows in the mind of small evidence being present. What we expected to get is a highly modeled theory of Universal Grammar based on several main principles that basically restrict the class of achievable grammars and narrowly compel the form, though with aspects that need to be fixed with experience.

Observation # 1: On the task of parameters in the synthetic theory Wexler and Manzini stated that parameters have been formed into the linguistic theory as an answer to the main issue of linguistics: the tension in the existing diversity of natural languages and essential of explaining the manner children may learn the grammars of their languages.

The parameters as an integrate part of the higher principle; the set of principle is not elevated by their existence (Schmidt, 1990). In this aspect, the parameters allow the explanation of the linguistic aspect, with on the other hand would look keenly on the number of redundant policies; additionally, the presence of parameters accounts and hinders the range of linguistic variation in the languages.

Observation # 2: In the subtheories of grammar, the linguistic aspect is not the result of one aspect but the interaction of a number of aspects and parameters. A recent advancement in the syntactic theory states that Universal Grammar is a ‘Governmental-Binding Syntax’. It starts from the basic aspects of the theory.

Every module of the theory is a subcomponent of the whole theory: the theory of government handles in the advancement of issues together in the case of theory, or it meets for the referential chances in the sentence together in the binding theory: which combines theory hindering the distance that the item shifts to. The range of variation in the languages is stated by parameters that may be sorted out in the negative or positive aspect of every language (Corder, 1967). The Universal Grammar theory is closely connected to the learnability notion. So as to have an idea of what the Universal Grammar may involve and the relevance for language acquisition.

The structured reliance is a universal concept that bears the syntactic sections of language. There lacks a language that goes against this aspect: grammatical changes are basically structure reliant in the sense that they manipulate in regard to the section of the assignment.

The interrogative aspect of the declaratives is acquired by shifting the initial verbal aspect to acquire the position. Seemingly, this form of movement depends on the linear trend of words. Though, linear order is not enough to state relevantly the form of operation taking place. As noted in appendix 1.

The movement of the initial verbal aspect to the initial point brings about a wildly ungrammatical sentence. The correct outcome, in this regard, is acquired by shifting into the prior position the second verb. Analytically, Chomsky’s definition of structured-reliance states that this form of linear shift is not required as it would shift an element and not the category hence the principle of structure-dependence. Hence the creation of the relevant yes/no question in English needs inner knowledge by the speakers of native origin. The validity of the principle similarly follows the language acquisition. The early hypothesis on the possible grammatical aspects is stated on sentences of words assessed into abstract phrases. It is in the course of the language acquisition that children don’t create sentences going against structure dependence aspect.

Observation # 3: In the levels of representation, the government-binding model involves two primary levels of representation. There are the d-structure and s-structure levels as well as the phonetic model that offers the representation of sounds as well as the logical form level that accords a logical interpretation of the operators and variables. The connection between the d and s models is fixe in regards to the motion of syntactic sections. Grammatical functions are acquired configurationally. There are though impacted by the shift of elements allocated to them.

An explanation of the phrases in the d-model is allocated by the X-bar theory. In the generative theory, sentence formation shows an asymmetric disposition of the primary nominal constituent (Schmidt, 1990). This aspect of language model is upheld by the cross linguistic indication of several forms; additionally, it has to be internal: Universal Grammar has to restrict the rules of phrase model so that the VP assessment is present at the relevant level of representation.

Observation # 4: In regard to the adjacency condition on case assignment, a parameter aspect of the Universal Grammar needs that the accusative instance in English to be allocated in adjacency, as noted in appendix 2.

Languages that do not have a rich morphological case model like English and Chinese have to see some form of parametric blocking on case assignment. Some form of hindrances on case assignment. Some form of variation in the languages is seen in regards to a parameter with two values. English sees a strict adjacency and allocation of accusative instance of the verb may be hindered by the interposition of more words.

Universal Grammar is a theory that is based on knowledge. It is related with to the inner model of the human mind and not his tendency. The theory has advanced and been refined, though the principles and parameters looks into the Universal Grammar main argument which linguistic competence involves principles universal languages and parameters that range from one language to another. The parameters account for the range in the languages and main discussion.

The concept of ‘head’ parameter may be applied to show the task of parameters in the Universal Grammar. Sentences are made up of phrases involving heads and elements termed to as complements. The head phrase may take place on the left or right. Examples are seen in appendix 3.

The head verb kakatte imasu takes place to the right of the verb complement kabe ni and ni occurs to the right of the complement kabe.

These instances show that there are two forms of models of phrases in languages; head being on the left or right. This is the head parameter. In the Universal Grammar theory of L1 acquisition, input from the ambient language called primary linguistic data (PLD), is necessary to bring about the setting of parameters that state the precise instance of a language. Hence exposure the native language is necessary for the head parameter to be set to the right of the mind of the child. A child brought up in an English setting will have the head parameter set to the left. Explicit information regarding ungrammatical syntactic is attributed to be negative data (ND) in the Universal Grammar theory; it is not involved in the setting of parameters in L1 acquisition.

Schwartz (1993) looks into the PLD and ND inL2 acquisition. She made a hypothesis on two unique matters based on linguistic knowledge and their behavior. This language is attributed to be competence. Performance is termed to as a tendency based on competence. The processing language input may be handled by a language module.

The impact on the SLA by the formal classroom instruction was looked into by Felix and Weigl (1991). They were the learners had no access to Universal Grammar, the L1 and L2 were learned in the same manner. These hindrances were taken to be biological aspect that would connect to some difference in the attributes between the child L1learners and adult L2 learners. The settings would connect to situational instances through which a second language is attained.

Conclusion

The discussion of the models above has been aimed at looking into the manner the input process is done and integrated into the SLA. It shows that the common terms in the models have been acquired from varied researchers to acquire varied components and show a number of issues of the process. There is been a finding that the models settle on the idea that cognitive models comparison is necessary for advancement, without considering the precise location, however it is largely above conscious management or instructional control. An assessment of the learner’s interaction in the input and learner’s skills may be useful, more so for instructed SLA. In terms of the Universal Grammar, the data shows that its process of parameter is not involved in a role in L2 acquisition. The Universal Grammar applies the cognitive model. It summarily involves competence and performance as well as internal and external language.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix

Input Process and Universal Grammar

Appendix 1

The man who is still thin is in the room- is the man who thin is in the room?

The man who is thin is in the room- is the man who is thin in the room?

Appendix 2

“Among the principle of the Case theory adjacency needs that were there is a case of adjacency needing that where a case is not morphologically acquired, a case-marked aspect has to be adjacent to the case-assigner, so that if a verb acquires an NP and PP complement, the initial will be close proximity to the verb”

Appendix 3

English: Noun phrase: “education for life”

The head ‘education’ is on the left of the complements ‘for life’

Japanese: E wa kabe ni kakatte imasu,

(picture wall on is hanging)

The picture is hanging on the wall

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reference

Anny Y. S. (2008). Input Processing in Second Language Acquisition: A Discussion of Four Input Processing Models. Teachers College, Columbia University, Working Papers in TESOL & Applied Linguistics, 2008, Vol. 8, No. 1.

 

Chaudron, C. (1985). Intake: On methods and models for discovering learners’ processing of input. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7, 1-14.

 

Corder, S. P. (1967). The significance of learners’ errors. IRAL, 5, 161-170.

 

Gass, S. M. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Elrbaum.

 

Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied

Linguistics, 11, 129-158.

 

Schwartz, B.D. (1993). On explicit and negative data effecting competence and linguistic behavior. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 147-163.

Sharwood Smith, M. (1986). Comprehension versus acquisition: Two ways of processing input. Applied Linguistics, 7, 239-256.

 

Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. M. Gass & C. G. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235-253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

 

VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction in second language acquisition. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

 

White, L. (1990). Second language acquisition and Universal Grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 121-134.