The Freezing Of Interlanguage Education Essay Example

attain native-like proficiency in the target language and tend to fossilize their language skills, what rules and structures do they create for themselves as they progress in language acquisition? These unique rules and structures are referred to as "lingua franca" by Selinker (1972, as cited in Cook, 2001; McLaughlin, 1987; Lightbown & Spada, 2006).This refers to the creation of temporary grammars made up of rules from different cognitive schemes. These grammars have features of both first and second languages but are distinct from both. They are created by second language scholars who are working towards mastering the target language.

Why do adult second language scholars encounter a obstacle known as fossilization, while children who are learning their first language are guaranteed to succeed? Fossilization occurs when the lingua franca stops developing. There are psycholinguistic reasons for this, such as the absence of language-specific learning mechanisms that children can utilize. Additionally, there may be sociolinguistic reasons, such as the lack of opportunity and motivation for adult second language learners to fully integrate into the target language community (McLaughlin 1987, Mitchell & Myles 2004).

An example of the lingua franca freezing, possibly due to sociolinguistic reasons, leading to fossilization is seen in the case of Alberto. During a nine-month study, Alberto showed minimal linguistic development. His lingua franca became simplified and reduced. Schumann (1978 as cited in McLaughlin 1987) saw this as a form of pidginization, which leads to fossilization when the learner no longer adjusts their lingua franca system towards the target language.Can a slow learner, who seems to not make any progress no matter how many extra lessons they are given, be considered a case of fossilization?

It is possible that they are making progress, but certain developments in their language system may be so slow that improvement cannot be perceived. The possibility of developing a fossilized area at a later point in time remains a mystery. This makes it extremely difficult to distinguish truly fossilized areas from areas of slow progression (Hyltenstam 1985). In order to avoid fossilization, teachers must incorporate instruction and feedback that helps learners recognize differences between their native language and the target language (LightBown & Spada 2006). This presents a very bleak picture of almost guaranteed failure for adult second language learners. However, this is only if we consider the ultimate goal of second language acquisition as achieving native-like proficiency, which is often unnecessary and unrealistic in many educational contexts (LightBown & Spada 2006). Children certainly go through inevitable developmental stages in first language acquisition (Galasso 2003). But do these stages apply to adult second language learners?Krashen argued that the acquisition of grammar in a specific language follows a natural order, regardless of the learner's first language or learning environment (McLaughlin 1987, Shannon 2005, Wilson 2000). Therefore, adults learning a second language can learn in the same way as learning a first language. Krashen's main evidence comes from the work of Dulay and Burt in 1974, who studied English as a second language and focused on morpheme studies. Their research was influenced by Roger Brown's 1973 work, which identified a common sequence of acquisition in first language acquisition (McLaughlin 1987, Mitchell & Myles 2004). Dulay and Burt examined Spanish and Chinese-speaking children learning English in New York and found that the sequence of acquisition was the same,

suggesting that the target language has more influence on errors than the first language. They then expanded their study to include speech samples from Spanish, Chinese, Japanese, and Norwegian-speaking children acquiring English as a second language, and found that the types of errors made by the children were remarkably similar.Research conducted by McLaughlin (1987) suggests that second language acquisition mirrors first language acquisition, as both processes rely on universal linguistic processes. This finding is further supported by studies from De Villiers (1973), Bailey et al. (1974), and Larsen-Freeman (1975), who found similar results in adult learners. These studies indicate a shared developmental sequence based on statistical correlations between learners with different first languages. However, critics argue that the morpheme studies have limitations, such as the use of a bilingual sentence structure measure and lack of longitudinal data to measure acquisition sequence accurately. Longitudinal studies conducted by Hakuta (1976), Huebner (1979), and Rosansky (1976) have produced different results from cross-sectional studies.Dulay and Burt (1973 as cited in Pienemann 1985) and Krashen both concluded that the traditional order of teaching grammar in language learning should be abandoned. They argued that learning should take place naturally, without explicit grammar instruction (Pienemann 1985, Wilson 2000). However, these studies were based on flawed grounds and did not provide evidence for a natural sequence of grammar development in second language learning. Even if we assume that there may be some sort of sequence, the previous research didn't explain the reasons behind this order. Therefore, this supposed sequence of grammar learning is not relevant to instruction (Cook, 2001). Unlike children learning their first language, adult second language learners already have a first

language that influences their learning process. This influence can be either advantageous, such as a deeper understanding of how language works and faster acquisition, or disadvantageous.The text discusses the phenomenon of language transfer, where learners make mistakes or mispronunciations influenced by their first language. This transfer is seen as a cognitive process in language production and has been studied in various studies. It is referred to as the transfer of the first language and has been observed in learners with different first languages, who progress at different rates and follow different developmental paths in the target language. For example, Keller and Cohen found that a Japanese, Finnish, and German student acquired English questions similarly, but the Finnish student took longer to acquire yes/no questions. Similarly, Zobl found different paths of acquisition for the English article in a Chinese-speaking and a Spanish-speaking student. This transfer from the first language can result in avoidance or errors. (Department of Education 2003, Lightbown & Spada 2006, Mitchell & Myles 2004) (Kellerman 1979, 1983 as cited in McLaughlin 1987) (Mitchell & Myles 2004, McLaughlin 1987) (Keller and Cohen 1979 as cited in McLaughlin 1987) (Zobl 1982 as cited in McLaughlin 1987)Schachter (1974 as cited in McLaughlin 1987) argued that the reason why Japanese and Chinese students learning English produce fewer comparative clauses than Iranian and Arabic students learning English is because Chinese and Japanese do not have relative clauses. Schachter (1983 as cited in McLaughlin 1987) showed that a student's previous knowledge limits the possible guesses about the new language, leading to incorrect generalizations. Research on vocabulary development (Ard and Homburg 1983 as cited in McLaughlin 1987) demonstrates that language

transfer has a facilitative side. There is a response effect that goes beyond items that exhibit obvious similarity. One perspective of second language acquisition, incompatible analysis, sees the transfer of aspects from the first language to the second language as a significant factor. This ranges from helping learners when the first language shares common elements with the second language to hindering them when the two languages differ (Cook 2001). This both overpredicted by identifying difficulties that did not arise and underpredicted due to unexplainable errors based on language transfer (McLaughlin 1987).The importance of transportation in language acquisition is significant, but it is necessary to conduct research and investigation rather than solely blaming the first language for all difficulties in learning a second language (Cook 2001). This approach would allow the second language instructor to make effective use of the first language when beneficial, instead of viewing it as an intrusion on the second language learning process. Throughout generations, children have learned and mastered language without formal instruction, rapidly and accurately. Some have assumed that parents teach their children through motherese (child-directed speech) (Department of Education 2003, Pinker 1994). While many children in developed countries may indeed be exposed to baby talk, it is not a universal phenomenon and is not essential for language development. In various communities and societies around the world, adults do not engage in motherese type language, whether in conversation or verbal play, with very young children. Nevertheless, miraculously, these children still manage to acquire the ability to speak (LightBown & Spada 2006, Pinker 1994).Children learning or reinventing language without instruction is exemplified by pidgin languages. When children are exposed to a

pidgin at a young age, it results in the development of a more complex language known as a Creole. Unlike adults, who do not transform pidgins into Creoles, children have the ability to create a new language through exposure. A clear example of this is the emergence of Nicaraguan sign language. Deaf children, who were brought together and received government support, developed a pidgin sign language. When these children reached the age of 10 or older, they used this pidgin to create a Creole sign language. In contrast, children who joined the school at the age of four or younger had more fluent sign language. They developed a Creole through exposure to the pidgin. According to Pinker (1994), adults do not lose the ability to acquire languages in the same way children do. Adult second language learners have two methods for developing proficiency: acquisition and learning. Acquisition is subconscious and resembles how children acquire their first language. It involves acquiring grammatical structures based on a sense of correctness and focuses on meaning rather than form.Secondly, learning refers to conscious knowledge of a second language, including learning about its grammar rules and forming opinions about grammaticality based on those rules (McLaughlin 1987, Shannon 2005, Wilson 2000). However, Krashen's distinction between acquired and learned language is not clear and can lead to circular definitions (Lightbown & Spada 2006, McLaughlin 1987). Krashen defined first and second language acquisition as the process of understanding and comprehending real messages (as opposed to learning). Second language learners can acquire a new language indirectly and unconsciously in contexts where meaning is easily understood, using their background knowledge and focusing on clear communication

of slightly more advanced structures (Mitchell & Myles 2004, Wilson 2000). According to Krashen, if sufficient input is understood, the necessary grammar will be automatically provided. However, Krashen's ideas are somewhat ambiguous. The existing state of knowledge (I) is not clear, and it is unclear whether the I + 1 concept applies to aspects of language other than syntax, such as vocabulary and phonemics (Mitchell & Myles 2004). For Krashen, learning does not develop into or become acquisition.Krashen suggested that second language learners should acquire linguistic rules subconsciously and naturally, similar to how children learn. He believed that exposure to comprehensible input is more important than explicit instruction and drills. As a result, he argued against the need for a formal grammar curriculum in the classroom and viewed second language classes as transitional. Krashen believed that focusing on the way language is presented rather than the content itself would lead to greater language acquisition. Throughout history, many individuals have acquired second languages while focusing on other activities. According to Krashen, reading should be emphasized rather than explicit grammatical structures. However, older learners can benefit from explicit grammar explanations as they possess more advanced cognitive abilities than young learners. The question remains if Krashen's theory is applied in practice.Can we provide second language learners with frequent exposure to specific forms of instruction without explicit direction to improve their understanding of those forms (Lightbown & Spada 2006)? In a study conducted by Marha Trahey and Lydia White (1993 as cited in Lightbown & Spada 2006), young French-speaking English learners in Quebec were given instruction on adverb placement through communicative and task-based learning. This instruction included reading and

comprehension activities, without explicit teaching or correction of adverb placement. The learners showed improvement in their acceptance of grammatically correct sentences in English but not in French. They continued to accept grammatically correct sentences in French but not in English, indicating incomplete learning. They required direction and, specifically, error correction to eliminate mistakes based on their first language. Krashen does not agree with the view that second language learners need error correction. He believes that since error correction has little effect on children, it has similarly insignificant effects on second language acquisition and can ultimately have a negative impact on motivation if excessive (Shannon 2005, Wilson 2000). However, this reality does not align with Krashen's perspectives.According to Kim McDonough's research in 2004, conducted in Thailand, it was found that increasing the use of negative feedback greatly improved the accuracy of conditional clauses. Classroom studies have shown that providing form-focused instruction, disciplinary feedback, and strategies within the framework of communicative and content-based learning is more effective for second language acquisition than solely focusing on comprehension, fluency, or accuracy-based learning (Lightbown & Spada, 2006; McLaughlin, 1987; Mitchell & Myles, 2004). Contrary to most instructors, the majority of language learners actually desire instruction and correction in order to acquire a second language (Renate Schulz, 2001 as cited in Lightbown & Spada, 2006). Krashen's belief that second language learners can acquire the language simply by receiving enough comprehensible input is nothing more than a fantasy that quickly becomes a nightmare. There is no solid evidence to support this notion and it undermines the entire education industry. It is clear that comprehensible input alone is not sufficient for second language

learners.There should be clear guidelines given on specific grammar points, vocabulary, and what scholars should focus on when correcting mistakes. If learners are given too much freedom without clear guidelines and correction of mistakes, it can lead to the permanent retention of those mistakes (Lightbown & Spada, 2006).

According to Krashen, motivation and confidence play a role in both first and second language acquisition, and these occur when the learner is relaxed. When the emotional filter is lowered, as Krashen calls it, or reduced while receiving understandable input, language acquisition occurs (Shannon, 2005; Wilson, 2000). All second language learners need to do is relax like children and receive understandable input, and they will acquire language. However, children successfully acquire their first language despite their varying circumstances (Pinker, 1994).

How many relaxed adult second language learners fail to make progress in their language studies? Schumann (1978 as cited in McLaughlin, 1987) viewed second language acquisition as being influenced by the level of social and psychological distance between the learner and the culture of the target language.The lower the level of socialization and language acquisition, the greater the societal and psychological distance between the second language learner and the target language group. Schumann (1978, as cited in McLaughlin 1987) provides an example of this with Alberto, a Costa Rican immigrant who was socially and psychologically distant from the target language group. Alberto had a small group of friends who spoke only Spanish and worked overtime instead of attending English classes. During a 9-month study, there was limited linguistic improvement seen in Alberto and signs of pidginization, which leads to fossilization. Second language learners often feel embarrassed and incompetent,

experiencing negative emotions that affect their motivation and enthusiasm (Lightbown & Spada 2006). While Krashen's assumption that child first language learners are relaxed and adult second language learners should strive for the same is flawed, his suggestion to minimize classroom stress is supported even by his critics (Shannon 2005, Wilson 2000).When comparing first and second language acquisition, age is the crucial factor according to societal and motivational explanations. Babies under six months old can distinguish phonemes in languages other than their native language, while adults cannot. Language acquisition is guaranteed until the age of six, but becomes compromised until shortly after puberty. Post-puberty language acquisition is rare. To understand why language acquisition capacity ceases, we need to understand when it is necessary. If the answer is that it is needed until we have acquired the underlying knowledge of the language from our community, then this would explain why there is an increased demand for language learning ability as we reach puberty (Pinker 1994). Jacqueline Johnson and Elissa Newport (1989) conducted a study on Korean and Chinese born students and faculty members at an American university. The participants' age of arrival to the U.S. was a significant predictor of success in an English morphology and syntax test they took. Immigrants who arrived in the States between the ages of three and seven performed equally to American born students.Those who arrived later in life, especially between the ages of 17 and 39, had the worst performance and displayed significant difficulties in their public presentations. Robert DeKeyser replicated a study by Johnson and Newport, this time with Hungarian immigrants to the United States. The results showed a strong

correlation between age at immigration and proficiency in the second language. DeKeyser also assessed participants' language aptitude and found that for adult learners, aptitude scores were linked to success, whereas there was no such correlation for child learners. Another study by Mark Patkowski emphasized that achieving complete fluency and native-like command of a language was only possible for those who started learning their second language before the age of 15. Almost all pre-puberty learners scored comparably to native speakers, suggesting that success in second language acquisition was nearly inevitable. On the other hand, the majority of post-puberty learners fell within a moderate range of scores, but there was a wide range of variation within this group.When Patkowski examined other factors that may affect success in second language acquisition, he found that the image was not as clear. The age at which language is acquired is a crucial factor in achieving native-like proficiency in a second language, and there seems to be a critical period for language acquisition during early childhood development (Mitchell & Myers 2004, Lightbown & Spada 2006).

Some individuals, like Krashen, argue that adults can acquire a language in the same way children do, by accessing the Language Acquisition Device (LAD). However, this understanding of the LAD is flawed. The LAD represents the initial state of the child, and adults are not in this initial state but possess more fully developed cognitive structures (McLaughlin 1987).

Adult second language learners must rely on their extensive knowledge, problem-solving skills, and metalinguistic abilities precisely because they can no longer access the innate language acquisition ability they had as young children (Lightbown & Spada 2006, Mitchell & Myers 2004,

Pinker 1994, Skehan 1998).

Teachers should take advantage of the cognitive abilities that adults possess and children do not, rather than forcing adults to learn in a manner that they have surpassed long ago.The first language scholar advances effortlessly towards inevitable success, unimpeded by prior language knowledge, guidance, or feedback. The second language scholar progresses inconsistently, sometimes hindered and sometimes helped by their previous language knowledge, desiring and needing guidance and feedback that is not always received. Simplified theories like Krashen's and the radical step of abandoning instruction do more harm than good for the second language scholar. What is necessary is to establish achievable goals for second language learners that align with their individual needs and motivations.The classroom setting should apply the profits derived from second language research, which include the cognitive abilities possessed by second language scholars, their advanced development compared to children, and the practical benefits such as recognizing linguistic differences between the scholar's native language and the target language. Instead of solely blaming the native language for difficulties in acquiring the second language, management and feedback strategies should be implemented along with the creation of a relaxed learning environment.