2nd Lang. Acquisition PDF

GROUP 1 1. Laraib Khalid (bsf2105886) 2. Humna Saleem (bsf2106148) 3. Malaika (bsf2105913) 4. Ariba Maryam (bsf2106110) 5. Amna (bsf2106196) 6. Alishba (bsf2105715) 7. Hasnain (bsf2106138)  TOPICS ACCULTURATION ERROR ANALYSIS   Acculturation Hypothesis: Proposed by John...

GROUP 1 1. Laraib Khalid (bsf2105886) 2. Humna Saleem (bsf2106148) 3. Malaika (bsf2105913) 4. Ariba Maryam (bsf2106110) 5. Amna (bsf2106196) 6. Alishba (bsf2105715) 7. Hasnain (bsf2106138)  TOPICS ACCULTURATION ERROR ANALYSIS   Acculturation Hypothesis: Proposed by John Schumann in 1978  Context: Second Language Acquisition (SLA) and language contact (e.g., pidgins and creoles)  Study Focus: Understanding how social and Acculturation cultural integration affects language acquisition Study Overview  Researchers: Schumann, Cancino, Rosansky (1974)  Participants: Six Spanish-speaking learners of English in the USA  Observation Period: Ten months   Alberto: A 33-year-old Spanish speaker  Outcome: Minimal progress in English acquisition Case Study :  Comparison: Other learners showed more Alberto improvement, acquiring 4–18 auxiliary verbs vs. Alberto’s 4  Pidgin-Like Characteristics in Alberto's Speech  Simplified Negation: Use of "no" (e.g., "I no see")  No Inversion: Lack of subject-verb inversion (e.g., "Where the paper is?")  Missing Auxiliaries: Absence of auxiliaries (e.g., "she crying")  Limited Morphology: No possessive markers (e.g., "The king food")  Unmarked Verb Forms: Lack of inflection (e.g., "Yesterday I talk with one friend")  Subject Pronouns: Inconsistent use (e.g., "no have holidays")   Simplified languages used for communication between people who don’t share a common language. Pidgin  Purpose: Typically used for basic needs and not as rich as native languages. Languages  Cultural Identity: Speakers of pidgin often maintain a stronger connection to their native language and culture. Example Case - Alberto's English Learning  Background: Alberto didn’t learn English through traditional social experiences.  Learning Differences: He avoided English for social activities and preferred Spanish music.  Outcome: Resulted in less fluency and naturalness compared to other English learners. Social interaction enhances language fluency.  Alberto's Experience: Limited interaction hindered his language progress, highlighting the role of social exposure. Acculturation Theory in Language Learning  Language learning success is linked to cultural integration. 'Acculturation' meaning social and psychological integration with the target group.  Social-factors are covered by the notion of social distance: if one group dominates the other, if one group isolates itself from the other, if one group is very small, and so on, social distance is high and success is consequently low Psychological factors come down to psychological distance if the person feels language shock at not being able to express themselves, or culture shock, or is poorly motivated then distance be too great for success. Summary  Effective language learning relies on both interaction and cultural adaptation. Strong social and cultural connections facilitate language learning success.  Alberto’s Case: Demonstrates how limited social engagement can impact fluency.   The errors learner make classifying by types  Hypothesizing possible source of the error. Error Analysis  In the history of SLA research error analysis was a phase of inquiry which followed on form Contrastive Analysis. Contrastive Analysis  Comparing two linguistic systems the learner's L1 and target L2 to determine structural similarities and differences.  L2 learner transfer habits of their L1 into L2. L1and L2 were same learner transfer appreciate properties and be successful that will be positive transfer Where L2 and L1 are differed the learner would transfer inappropriate properties and learner error would result a case of negative transfer. Errors entirely occur at the point of divergence between the L1 and the L2. Decline of Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis  The Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis lost favor during 1960 - 1980s as the result growing skepticism about the plausibility of a behaviorist account of language acquisition.  The accumulation of empirical studies of SLA which indicated that the contrastive analysis hypothesis made the wrong predictions.  The awareness that some of the errors which L2 learners make are not the result of negative transfer led to researchers focusing on errors themselves, rather than on comparing the source and target languages.  An article by Corder 1967   An important methodologies consideration at the outset was to set aside those errors which were transient lapses from those which were systematic differences between knowledge of L2 learner and the native speaker. Lapses  Example ; He have been there.  Speaker know language system due to inattention make error but correct it after realizing. Classification of Errors in English as a Second Language Taxonomy of Errors by Richard  A system for classifying and grouping related items. Purpose in L2  Research Identifies types of learner errors.  Helps instructors target specific areas of difficulty.  Richards analyzed English errors made by speakers from 11 different first- language backgrounds.   Verb group errors  Verb distribution errors Categories of  Preposition errors Errors:  Article errors  Question errors  Miscellaneous errors Verb Group Errors ❑ Incorrect verb choice or form. ❑ Example: He was died last year. ❑ Explanation: “Was” is incorrectly used as an auxiliary verb with “died. ❑ He didn't went to the party. ❑ She can sings well. Verb Group Distribution Errors :  Errors in verb tense or aspect.  Example: I am having my hair cut on Thursdays.  Explanation: Progressive “-ing” form conflicts with the habitual action described.  He has went to the store and bought groceries.  While she was writing the paper, she edits it as well. Preposition Errors :  Incorrect use of prepositions.  Example: Entered in the room.  Explanation: “Entered” typically does not require “in.”  I am good in math.  She share the secret between her friends. Article Errors :  Incorrect use of articles.  Example: She goes to bazaar every day.  Explanation: Missing “the” before “bazaar.”  She bought an book.  She went to the school to meet a friend.  A sun is shining brightly. Question Formation Errors :  Mistakes in question structure.  Example: Why this man is cold?  Explanation: Incorrect word order; auxiliary “is” should come before “this man.”  Why you are late?  You like coffee?  Do you can help me? Miscellaneous Errors :  General category for uncategorized errors.  Examples: I am very lazy to stay at home.  This is not fit to drink it.  Explanation: Various other structural or lexical issues that do not fit other categories.  Each student must bring their pencil.  He returned back to the office. Dulay Burt and Krashen's taxonomy There are three type of Dulay Burt and Krashen's taxonomy.  Surface taxonomy  Comparative taxonomy  Communicative effect taxonomy   Surface taxonomy classified language error by their observable characteristics, helping identify pattern in learner mistakes to improve teaching strategies  Basically in surface taxonomy there can be Surface structural deformation and there may be mistakes in it structure Taxonomy Addition  In addition extra words are added to the target language  Example: My mother she is a teacher My mother is a teacher He is a best friend He is best friend Surface Taxonomy Double marking  In which the learner will perform double marking in the target language  Example: She didn’t went to school Over generalization  Over generalizing is a language error where learner apply a grammatical rule too broadly using it in situation where it a doesn’t apply  Example: saying “good” instead of went Saying “mouses” instead of mice Surface taxonomy : Miss ordering  In which the element of sentence are arranged in an incorrect sequence.  This lead to confusion and misunderstanding  Example: Like in question formation  What daddy is doing?  What is daddy doing?   Where second language learning error are classified by similarities with children first language learners deviation from target language norms  Examples Comparative Both learner and L1 child produce sentence type Taxonomy : like  Apple come down ( no auxiliary , no determiner )  Did I did it? ( double marking )   Is a way to classify language mistakes Communicative based on how much the effect communication it looks at whether an Effect error makes a message hard to Taxonomy : understand or just sounds awkward without confusion the meaning. Example: ❑ Burt and Kiparsky (1972) used sentences like:.... (1) The English language use much people (2) English language use many people (3) Much people use English language to ask native speakers of English for judgements of comprehensibility. ❑ Sentence 3 was judged as more comprehensible than sentences (1)-(2), suggesting that word order error are greater hindrance to comprehension than the correct use of determiners, or quantifier. Understanding Error Production in Second Language Acquisition Selinker's Five Processes These processes show Selinker (1972) outlined that errors are systematic five processes that and influenced by both contribute to errors in the learner’s native language learning. language and their learning environment. Process 1: Language Transfer  Influence of the learner’s first language (L1) on their second language (L2).  Example: Serbo-Croatian learners overuse "he" in English due to lack of gender distinction in their L1.  Language transfer is now viewed as just one potential source of errors, not the only one Process 2 : Transfer of Training :  Errors due to the way learners are taught.  Example: Textbooks focusing on "he" drills can lead learners to use "he" universally.  Teaching methods impact how learners apply language rules. Process 3 : Strategies of Second Language Learning  Simplification methods learners adopt to make learning easier.  Example: Over-regularization: applying a general pattern everywhere, even when incorrect.  Simplification is a natural part of learning but can lead to over- application of rules. Process 4: Strategies of Second- Language Communication  Techniques learners use to maintain communication despite errors.  Example: Learners may produce fluent but grammatically incorrect sentences to avoid communication breakdown.  Focus is on fluency over accuracy to prevent conversational disruptions. Process 5: Overgeneralization of Target Language Rules  Applying target language rules too broadly.  Example: Saying “drive a bicycle” by extending the verb “drive” to bicycles.  Overgeneralization is common in learners as they try to generalize language rules. Summary  Selinker’s five processes demonstrate how errors in language learning are systematic.  Each process reflects a different aspect of the learner’s approach to understanding and using the new language.  Understanding these processes helps in developing better teaching strategies and supporting language learners