i) the similarities and differences between L1 and L2
ii) psychological factors
iii) social factors.
Then, drawing upon relevant literature, consider implications for language teaching/learning [250 words max].
This question as worded below specifies the student’s age, gender, L1 and country of origin. However, you may vary this question for gender, L1 and country of origin, if this would render it more useful for you. The student’s age, and other details as below, must remain the same.
Ahmed is a nine-year old boy of Arabic background who immigrated to Australia through the family reunion scheme one year ago. He is living with his parents and two younger sisters in rented accommodation in Sydney’s Western suburbs. Ahmed attends the local primary school, as well as Arabic L1 maintenance classes on a Saturday.
In Lebanon, Ahmed received three hours a week EFL instruction at a private language school, through which he became familiar with some basic English vocabulary, grammar, and writing.
Ahmed is an average student, of a quiet disposition, who in his free time enjoys computer games, soccer and reading. In the classroom, he prefers observation and reflection to experiment and discovery. Ahmed’s parents are small-business people, who completed Year 12 schooling in Lebanon. They believe that success in education, as in life, depends more upon effort than ability.
(Case Study 1)
Introduction:
This report is to investigate the different factors that might have positive of negative impact on Ahmed’s English language learning as a second language in public school in Australia. These factors include the similarities and differences between Ahmed’s L1 and English, the psychological factors and the social factors.
The similarities and differences between L1 and L2:
The fundamental differences between the Arabic and English languages stem from their origins. Arabic (L1) is a Semitic language belonging to the Afroasiatic language family, while English (L2) belongs to the Indo-European family (McGregor 2009). These diverse origins lead to major differences in the two languages today, such as syntax, morphology and phonology (Swan & Smith 2001).
In Arabic formal writing, the verb precedes the subject, which is different from English, where the word order is subject, verb, object (SVO). However, in spoken Arabic and informal writing, the word order is the same as in English. For example, ‘I love you’ in English uses the standard SVO order, as does ‘انا أحبك’ in Arabic (Swan & Smith 2001; Wikipedia 2014). In both spoken and written Arabic, nouns precede adjectives, while it is the opposite in English. For example, to describe a man as tall in Arabic, you would say ‘man tall’ (Swan & Smith 2001).
Another difference in Arabic and English syntax involves articles and the verb ‘to be.’ According to Swan and Smith (2001), Arabic has no indefinite articles while English has two, ‘a’ and ‘an’. In addition, there is no verb ‘to be’ in Arabic, so the copula (am, is, are) is not expressed. When an Arabic speaker wants to state, ‘He is a teacher,’ the speaker would say the equivalent of ‘He teacher,’ omitting the indefinite article ‘a’ and the ‘to be’ verb ‘is’ (Swan & Smith 2001). Moreover, Arabic does not have an equivalent for the auxiliary verb ‘to do’ (Swan & Smith 2001).
Another difference is how English and Arabic form plurals of nouns. In Arabic, according to McGregor (2009) and, Swain and Smith (2001), plurals are formed by internal changes in the word; for example, the plural of ‘kitab’ (book in English) is ‘Kutub’ (books). On the other hand, plurals are formed in English by adding ‘s’ at the end of the word or in many cases the word is changed partially or totally new word is replacing the singular word, for example, ‘mice’ is the plural of ‘mouse’.
Another area where Arabic and English are different is phonology. In fact, Arabic and English have are very different phonological systems not only in the range of sounds used, but in the emphasis placed on vowels and consonants in expressing meaning (Swan & Smith 2001). Swan and Smith (2001, p. 196) state that ‘English has 22 vowels and diphthongs to 24 consonants, Arabic has only eight vowels and diphthongs to 32 consonants.’. Arabic speakers tend to mix between /p/ and /b/, and /v/ and /f/.
Psychological factors:
According to the case study, Ahmed received three hours per week of EFL classes in Lebanon from the ages of four to six. Although he received EFL training at a young age, he would not benefit from his young age, according to (Dörnyei 2009), because he learned English (L2) in an environment with few or no native speakers of English and in a school where English is taught as a separate subject.
Even though Ahmed’s performance in school was not high according to the case might be a successful L2 learner according to Lightbown and Spada (2013) who argue that students with weak academic performance might success in L2 learning if they are given the right opportunity.
According to Gardner and Lambert (1972, cited in Lightbown and Spada 2013, p. 87), Ahmed’s motivation, as an immigrant, is classified as integrative motivation, which he defined it as ‘language learning for personal growth and cultural enrichment through contact with speakers of the other language [L2]’ (Lightbown and Spada 2013, p. 87).
Peter MacIntyre (1995, cited in Lightbown and Spada 2013, p. 85) states that relaxed students learn faster than nervous students do because relaxed students focus only on the task. In contrast, nervous students focus on the task as well as their reactions to it. Lightbown and Spada (2013) say that adolescent learners of L2 face anxiety problems more often than other young learners because adolescents are more self-conscious. Accordingly, Ahmed is less likely to have anxiety problems learning English (L2) because of his young age.
Social factors:
A study conducted by Jia and Aaronson (2003, cited in Dörnyei 2009, pp. 259-260) found that young immigrants, such as Ahmed, tend to switch their dominant language to English and make friends with L2 speakers, while older immigrants tend to have most of their friends from L1 speakers. In addition, the study shows that young immigrants read L2 books and newspapers for leisure, while older immigrants keep reading books or newspapers in their native language. Possibly, younger immigrants are curious about L2 culture because they do not have much contact with their own culture, while older children prefer to interact with others from their own cultures.
According to Norton and Toohey (2001), participating in the community of L2 speakers helps people learn L2 effectively through interaction within that community.
Rathod (2012) points out that social class plays an important role in the success of learning L2. He says most studies show that children in higher socioeconomic classes are more successful in L2 learning than children in lower classes.
Gender, also, seen as an important factor affecting the learning of L2 (Shakouri & Saligheh 2012). Holmes (1994, cited in Shakouri & Saligheh 2012, p. 3) claims that studies show that males tend to dominate classroom interaction and that teachers reinforce this behaviour by giving more time and attention to them. Furthermore, men use interaction to gain and exchange information. These features as Shakouri and Saligheh (2012) indicated, give Ahmed as a male an advantage to interact in L2 more than girls do.
However, Ahmed will most likely overcome the negative-transfer difficulties through frequent contact with other students in the public school.
Implications of language teaching and learning: (250)
The differences between Ahmed’s L1 and L2 might lead Ahmed to make many errors in learning L2 by applying the rules of L1 in L2. Saville-Troike (2006) described that as negative transfer. Ahmed, according to Swain and Smith (2001), might make errors in English when he use the noun-adjective word-order rule.
However, Ahmed could benefit from the few similarities between L1 and L2 and that is called positive transfer according to Saville-Troike (2006). To take advantage from the few similarities of Arabic (L1) and English (L2) Ahmed’s teacher should point out these similarities (Lightbown and Spada 2013).
Playing soccer, according to Dörnyei (2009), give Ahmed the motivation to interact with native-speaker, which contribute in the process of Learning L2 from social aspect.
Ahmed’s parents believe that success is achieved by depending on effort more than ability, which might indicate that Ahmed’s parents are playing a major role in encouraging and supporting Ahmed in his learning of English. According to Rathod (2012), such encouragement is very important in the success of second-language learning.
In phonology, minimal pairs exercise can be useful for Ahmed to differentiate between the sound of p and b.
Conclusion:
Learning English as a second language for Ahmed can be much easier for him that older peers and he can achieve native or native speaker of English.
References:
Lightbown, P.M. & Spada, N. 2013, How languages are learned, 4th edn, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Dörnyei, Z. 2009, The psychology of second language acquisition, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Norton, B. and Toohey, K. 2001, ‘Changing Perspectives on Good Language Learners’, TESOL Quarterly, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 307-322.
Saville-Troike, M. 2006, Foundations of second language acquisition, Cambridge Press, Cambridge.
Swan, M. and Smith, B. 2001, Learner English: a teacher’s guide to interference and other problems, Cambridge Press, Cambridge.
McGregor, W.B. 2009, Linguistics: an introduction, Continuum, London.
FIS 2014, The factors that influence the acquisition of a second language, viewed 11 October 2014, <http://esl.fis.edu/teachers/support/ factors.htm>.
SIL International 2014, What is phonology?, viewed 11 October 2014, <http://www-01.sil.org/linguistics/glossaryoflinguisticterms/WhatIs Phonology.htm>.
Rathod, N. 2012, Social factors in second language acquisition, viewed 12 October 2014, < http://omjaeducation. wordpress.com/2012/02/20/ social-factors-in-second-language-acquisition/>.
Shakouri, N. & Saligheh, M. 2012, ‘Revisiting age and gender influence in second language acquisition’, Advances in English Linguistics, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1-6.
Drawing upon the data provided, consider how the following factors influence the learner’s L2 development:
i) the similarities and differences between L1 and L2
ii) psychological factors
iii) social factors.
Then, drawing upon relevant literature, consider implications for language teaching/learning [250 words max].
Lee is 19 years old. She is attending a full-time English program at an ELICOS college in inner city Sydney, while working twenty hours per week in a fast-food outlet. Lee has been in Australia for 2 months: she has another two months remaining in her English program, after which time she hopes to have attained the 6.5 IELTS test score which is required to enter a B Bus (Commerce) program at a local university. Lee plans to return to China when she completes her Australian degree.
Lee comes from Yunnan province in China. She was an above-average student who performed well in examinations which dealt principally with English grammar and reading comprehension. Lee’s literacy in Chinese is at a high level. In her English class, Lee likes to engage in structured discussion-type tasks in L2. She also strives to attain a high degree of accuracy in her speech and writing. Lee places high value on receiving teacher correction of her spoken and written L2.
Lee’s contacts in Sydney have been formed with other international students at her ELICOS college; the majority of her classmates are from China, Taiwan, Korea and Japan. Lee is sharing a flat in the inner city with three other international students of Chinese background.
She spends approximately 7-10 hours per week online, accessing Social Networking and other sites where she communicates mainly in Chinese and occasionally in English. Her favorite music and fashion is Japanese.
(Case Study 2)
Introduction:
This report is to investigate the different factors that might have positive of negative impact on Lee’s English language learning as a second language in an English language institute in Australia. These factors include the similarities and differences between Ahmed’s L1 and English, the psychological factors and the social factors.
The similarities and differences between L1 and L2:
Chinese (L1) and English (L2) come from the different language families. While Chinese belongs to Sino-Tibetan, English, as mentioned in case 1, belong to Indo-European language family (McGregor 2009). In addition, Chinese and English have many differences in structure and that might cause difficulties in all stages of learning English by a Chinese speaker, as Lee (Swain & Smith 2001).
The writing system of Chinese is non-alphabetic while English language is alphabetic. Because of that Chinese learners of English make find it difficult to learn the English spelling patterns.
In Chinese, there is no comprehensive grammatical classification of and the same word may serve many different functions (Swain & Smith 2001. In contrast, English does have grammatical classification. That difference obligates the Chinese learner to make extra effort to remember the classification of English (Swain & Smith 2001).
Chinese is isolating language while English is considered weakly inflected language (Swain & Smith 2001). Swain and Smith (2001, p. 315) state that ‘ what English achieves by changing verb forms, Chinese expresses by means of adverbials, word order and context’.
English and Chinese, according to Swian and Smith (2001) have very different phonological system. Some of English Phonemes has no equivalent in Chinese and these phonemes are hard to acquire. Other phonemes resemble Chinese phonemes but not identical to them in pronunciation and that cause confusion. According to Swain and Smith (2001), Chinese speakers have to make more effort to distinguish English vowels because ‘there are more vowel contrast in English than in Chinese, so English vowels are close to each other in terms of position of articulation than Chinese vowels’ (Swain and Smith 2001, p. 311).
Psychological factors:
Dornyei (2009) believes that older learners of second language might achieve better progress in their L2 learning because of their cognitive maturity. He explains the maturity of older learners enables them to make the most of educational tasks. Furthermore, older is better for becoming literate and as Dornyei (2009) believes, literacy is a powerful means for successful second language learning. According to Lenneberg (1967, cited in Dornyei 2009, p. 255), acquiring the language naturally and effortlessly stops for the most people around puberty when the brain loses its plasticity.
Age encompasses a problem with Lee because cognitive there is cognitive difference between children and adult (Owens, p. 148). Cognitive gap between a developing child and adult is regarded as one of the primary difficulties in second language acquisition because of the difference in biological timetable (Shakouri and Saligheh, p. 2). Another important factor to consider is Lee’s preferred engagement to structured discussion type. If the student prefers a specific learning method, there would be inhibitions in optimal learning.
Inhibition, according to Lightbown and Spada (2013), is discourages brisk-taking, which is necessary to success in learning L2. They claim that is cause a problem in L2 particularly for adolescent’s learners because they are more self-conscious than younger learners. Guiora et al. (1970, cited in Lightbown and Spada 2013, p 85) see inhibition as a negative factor especially in pronunciation.
Intelligence, according to Lightbown and Spada (2013), plays an important role in language analysis and rule learning but might be less influential outside the classroom where language focuses more on communication and interaction. This concept applies to Lee as she prefers the structured discussion-type in learning. L2 learning can best put in practice if the environment favours interaction allowing the student to use what was learned in the classroom. The practice of speaking in the second language can be best accomplished if information processing was enhanced (Owens 2012, p. 70). For example, the phase in processing of information differs in automatic and effortful processing. Automatic becomes unintentional because of routine, which require less cognitive effort as the routine becomes regular while effortful process requires attention and concentration (Owens 2012, p. 71). However, automatic processing can become more efficient through practice. This is when structured discussion-type becomes more useful for Lee in L2 learning because it fosters development of regular routine that in return lessens the cognitive process necessary in linguistic practice.
Lee is returning to China as soon as she completes her Australian degree, and that indicates that her motivation of acquiring L2 is not high than is not become a part of the English language community. Such decision is likely to inhibit Lee from practicing what she had learned in L2 particularly when goes back to China. Individuals create their own pattern of linguistic behaviour that resembles those of the individuals or groups from which the learner wishes to be identified (Boztepe 2005 , p. 12). In this case, Lee would want to identify herself associated with the Chinese community, which resembles the first language linguistic behaviour. It is apparent that code switching will be more difficult for Lee if she chose to go back to China as soon as she finishes her degree. The we-code and the they-code encompass the categories that embodies the primary function of linguistics in relation to the speech community where the learner belongs (Boztepe 2005, p. 17). If Lee returns to China, her Linguistic code switch is likely to remain in the we-code. To remain in the we-code suppresses the capacity of the L2 student to practice code switching (Dulm, 2007).
Social factors:
Older learners, according to Jia and Aaronson (2003), tend to keep their L1 as their dominant language. Furthermore, older learners would have low number of L2 friends. They added that older learners do their most leisure reading in their L1 and interact with friends from their same or similar culture and all of these can be clearly noticed on Lee profile. According to Jia et al. (2002), these characteristics of older learners of L2 might play an important role in disadvantaging them in learning L2.
Gender, also, might play a negative factor from social perspective in Lee success in learning L2 as Holmes (1995, cited in Shakouri & Saligheh 2012, p. 3) states that females’ polite ways of participating in classroom talk might disadvantage them in mixed-sex classrooms.
Lee, according to the case, is working of a fast food outlet and that might give her great opportunity to communicate and interact with many English speakers. Despite the fact that she is sharing a flat in the inner city with other international students of Chinese background. That would play an important role in her English learning because she has access to a variety of conversations with customers and her workmates (Norton 2000, cited in Norton 2001, pp. 310-314).
Lee’s part-time employment in the fast-food restaurant in Sydney is an opportunity where she can practice communicating in English and applies what she had learned in class. Individuals and their linguistic functioning require a shift in activities and settings to accompany social practice (Norton and Toohey 2001 p.311). Furthermore, learning development occurs when people are participating in socio cultural activities within the community (Rogoff, 1994, cited in Norton and Toohey 2001, p. 311). In Lee’s case, social interaction in a form of serving the customers in the fast-food restaurant constitutes the environment that reinforces L2 learning. Through constant interaction within an L2 environment such as the fast-food restaurant, Lee would find it useful to imitate samples of the new language (Lighbown and Spada 2013, p. 202). In addition, the continuous sampling of English while working in the restaurant will allow Lee to identify syntagmatic relationship and eventually reduce interference when speaking in second language (Norton 2007, p. 123).
On the other hand, the fact that Lee is sharing the flat with individuals with Chinese background brings her back to the code-switching problem where the categories of they-code and we-code become apparent. The shared cultural qualities between the individuals in the flat and Lee signifies the prevalence of the we-code, which is likely to encourage her to switch from L2 to L1 more often. This encompasses inhibitions in terms of linguistic practice where cultural preference supersedes the needed L2 reinforcement. Furthermore, cultural preference may constitute negative transfer during conversations with individuals whom Lee shares the flat with. For example, the L1 structure might be used during the L2 utterance while in conversation with Lee’s roommates. It is because the automatic linguistic behaviour requires less cognitive effort in L1, which enables Lee to communicate with her roommates more efficiently. The other social activities that are likely to introduce Lee to negative transfer and, therefore, will make it more difficult for her to internalize L2 are spending more time in online conversation in Chinese and frequently listening to Japanese music.
Implications for language teaching/learning: [250 words max]
The differences between Lee’s L1 and L2 might lead to making several mistakes in learning L2 by applying the rules of L1 in L2. Saville-Troike (2006) described that as negative transfer.
However, Lee could benefit from the few similarities between L1 and L2 and that is called positive transfer according to Saville-Troike (2006). To take advantage from the few similarities of Chinese (L1) and English (L2) Lee’s teacher should point out these similarities and encourage the discussion-type approach to reinforce L2 retention (Lightbown and Spada 2013).
In order to reinforce the English language, Lee needs to deviate or minimize interactions that would enable her to speak in Chinese (Swan & Smith 2001). The Chinese learner of English, according to Swain and Smith (2001), could have some difficulties with many phonemes while other phonemes are similar to the ones in English and shall be perceived and articulated without any difficulties. In Lee’s age, learning English is a challenge because her brain’s age is already lost its plasticity (Dörnyei 2009).
Working in fast-food restaurant, gives Lee the opportunity to interact with native-speaker, which contributes in the process of Learning L2 from social aspect. Having to share a place with other L1 speakers encourages negative transfer including a lifestyle based on another linguistic form, which is Japanese. These factors play a crucial role in Lee’s adaptation of L2 concepts. In addition, Lee will be going back to China after finishing her degree, which puts her in an environment that less conducive to English speaking. Therefore, in order to maximize the learning potential, Lee should practice speaking in English more while spending her time Australia.
Conclusion:
Learning English for Lee is a challenge, which can be overcome by eliminating the some of the social factors that creates the negative transfer. Achieving the optimum learning capacity in L2 will require more interaction with the native-English speakers than with the L1 speakers.
References:
Boztepe, M. 2005, Issues in CodeSwitching: Competing Theories and Models, Columbia University.
Dörnyei, Z. 2009, The psychology of second language acquisition, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Dulm, O. 2007, The grammar of English-Afrikaans code switching, LOT, Netherlands.
Lightbown, P.M. & Spada, N. 2013, How languages are learned, 4th edn, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Norton, B. and Toohey, K. 2001, ‘Changing Perspectives on Good Language Learners’, TESOL Quarterly, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 307-322.
Owens, R. E. 2012, Language Development: An Introduction, 8th edn, Pearson Education, New Jersey.
Saville-Troike, M. 2006, Foundations of second language acquisition, Cambridge Press, Cambridge.
Swan, M. and Smith, B. 2001, Learner English: a teacher’s guide to interference and other problems, Cambridge Press, Cambridge.
Shakouri, N. & Saligheh, M. 2012, ‘Revisiting age and gender influence in second language acquisition’, Advances in English Linguistics, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1-6.
