Language and Development - Assignment Example

LANGUAGE AND DEVELOPMENT Insert student’s name September 5, 2013 LANGUAGE AND DEVELOPMENT 1. False 2. False 3. True 4. True 5. True 6. Swain 7. © social constructivism 8. (b). Instructor 9. d) 18-19 10. a) development enables learning to happen 1. Halliday perception on language learning and language addresses the relationship between language form and social meaning. Halliday does not describe language as a self-contained system of rules but as a symbolic system that reflects the meaning which are not only generated but also shared within social groups. Theoretically, learning a language is learning how to mean. It is through interaction with others that a learner gradually comes up with the meaning potential of a given language or set of languages. When people learn their first language (mother tongue), they begin in the middle of the first year via constructing either a child tongue, protolanguage or a simple semiotic system in interacting with their caregivers (Halliday, 1993). After children have learned the basic principles of how to mean, children immediately start to make the transition into the mother tongue which is spoken around them approximately during their second year of life. At the end of the transitional period, they move into mother tongue whereby their meaning –making resources are multi-stratal. The content plane is stratified into lexico-grammar and semantics. Consequently, language is located within the context and it is between the semiotic environment and the relationship between the two is regarded as stratal and it is this kind of relationship on which the language internal organization is based (Halliday, 1993). Learners need to learn language trinocularly that is from all the stratal angels and not only from below i.e. the resources of writing and of sounding or of signing and then resources of wording which re from above. Nonetheless, in language teaching, teachers have the tendency of focusing on one angle of approach and excludes others. The traditional grammar based approach was from below of the strata while the notional syllabus approach provided from the above perception. In a nutshell, in teaching language from meaning perspective, teachers need rich accounts of semantics and lexico-grammar. Consequently, a semantic as an interface between lexico-grammar and context is required, in other words a fully-fledged semantics of a text as learners need to learn semantics as a strategic resource, i.e. transforming what is not meaning into meaning (Halliday, 1993). At some stage of the learning path, learners start to learn another language which can be under conditions particularly to the first language; informal rather instructed, natural rather than induced. Nonetheless, if a language is introduced into the primary education system, learning is likely to be induced instead of being primarily natural and is guided by explicit instruction which is based on educational syllabi, lesson plans and curricular (Halliday, 1993). The basic principle in primary education in learning the first language is that learners have already learned how to mean and their mother tongue is the most powerful meaning making resource which can be drawn on (Ortega, 2009). This is because they have been learning the language and have successfully used it as learning resource for a long term. From the mentioned, it can be concluded that first language is a resource for learning a new language (Halliday, 1993). In a nutshell, from the meaning perspective, it is important to point out that language teaching should be based on the view that language is a tool of communication. That is language is a social tool that speakers can use to make meaning; learners communicate with other purposefully either verbally or through writings. References Halliday, M.A.K 1993. ‘some grammatical problems in scientific English in M.A.K Halliday & J.R martin (eds) writing science: literacy and discourse power, Falmer press, London ppl 69-85. Ortega, L. (2009). Understanding second language acquisition. London: Hodder education, pp. 220-1. 2. It is true that through others we become ourselves. According to Vygotsky (1978) language develops as a result of social interactions. According to Vygotsky children are capable of advancing higher levels of performance and knowledge in an interactive environment that is supportive. Therefore, adult conversations with the children is important as they are the origins of thoughts and language. This is because the conversations provides the children with scaffolding, a supportive structure that assists them to gain new knowledge. Consequently, just like interaction is essential in first language acquisition so is it essential in second language acquisition. Additionally, language is not a system of rules for performing certain socially communicative functions as other scholars posit (Vygotsky, 1978). Each social context in which an infant develops provides a distinct means of interpreting and therefore shapes the first attempt at communication of a child could mean. It is important to note that distinct interactions and contexts may result into different kinds of language use. Lightbown & Spada, (2013) too adds that language learning is a social process as it is through others that one learn about a given language. Halliday perceives language learning and language as addressing the relationship between language form and social meaning. It can be pointed out that language produced by learners and teachers in a classroom setting is based on their mutual understanding of the cultural and social norms of a language instruction in the whole school the environment. Supporting Vygotskian view, Lightbown & Spada, (2013) points out that language use is perceived as a social activity that functions as a mediator between classroom practices and the extent at which they agree or adhere with the cultural or social norms of a language instruction in the school in teaching second language. It is further evident that human language emerged particularly from the social role of language in the human interactions. Consequently, environment has a key role in the language development. In the linguistic environment of a child, adults are perceived as instrumental in the acquisition of a language and the same is evident in L2 acquisition. Additionally, social interaction are the main elements in the language input and processing drawn from social interactions offers a model for negotiation opportunities. According to Vygotsky (1978) learners bring two distinct levels of development to language learning: potential development and actual development and in learning a language, learners move from actual development to proximal development via social interaction. However Chomsky in his study points out that in most cases there is a poor match between the kind of language learners produce and the kind language found in the input. In a nutshell, L2 acquisition can only occur if the learner is in a position to have access to input in the second language which can come in spoken or written form. According to (Halliday) 1993) behaviorists, incase learners are presented with input in the right doses, the process of language acquisition is likely to be controlled if the attempts to practice them is reinforced. References Lightbown, P. M. & Spada, N. 2013, How languages are learned, 4th edn, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Vygotsky, L. 1978. Mind in society. The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press. 3 According to Krashen, speaking the foreign language not only promotes acquisition but also conversion whereby the promoter has certain control over the topic and the other participants only so as to make themselves understood offers a valuable intake. Krashen add that the best activities for the classroom are those that are interesting, understood and natural. He adds that if the teaching can provide the aforementioned characteristics, the classroom can proof to be the best place for L2 acquisition. Similarly, according to Lightbown & Spada, (2013) the ideal input for acquiring a second language is the same to the child’s received input, not too complex, comprehensibly and not strictly graded. Krashen (1982) highlights a set of requirements that need to be met by all the activities that aim at subconscious language acquisition. He considers comprehensible input as the key essential factor for language acquisition and that incomprehensible input hinders L2 acquisition. The mentioned according to Krashen justifies why educational TV programmes does not successfully teach foreign language unless the learner speaks a language that is closely related to the intended language. Hence, Krashen has defined a good language teacher is one who can easily make input comprehensible to a non-native speaker, regardless of the competence level in the target language. According to Krashen if the input is relevant and interesting to the learner, he/she my even forget that encoded message is in a foreign language. Additionally, optimal input is ungrammatically sequenced. This is because if the focus is on grammatical considerations, then the input will be less interesting. Therefore, the optimal input need to be sufficient quantity, however Krashen fails to specific the quantity that is needed to attain a certain level of proficiency in L2 acquisition. Teachers of L2 should therefore concentrate on supplying comprehensible input to the learners so as to stimulate second language acquisition (Lightbown & Spada, 2013). Krashen arguments are in favor of the input hypothesis which focuses on the acquisition of the spoken fluency by not only reading but also listening and not by talking and practicing. This is because according to Krashen, it is theoretically possible to acquire language without practicing or talking. In supporting his claim, he uses lenneberg study. Lenneberg in his study found a boy who suffered from congenital dysarthria could understand spoken English perfectly despite being unable to speak. Hence, it is evident that the child had acquired competence without speaking. Nonetheless, according to Krashen, if the child had speaking capabilities, he could have attain competency faster as a result of indirect contribution of speaking to acquisition. This is because the more one speaks, the more people will talk to him or her. Consequently, it impacts on the quality of the input that is directed to the acquirer as he/she receives an input that is more modified. For the purpose of language acquisition, engaging in conversation is more effective compared to eavesdropping (Emmitt, Zbaracki, Komesaroff, Pollock, 2010). In conclusion, modified output are as a result a process for sustained negotiation particularly for meaning which plays a crucial role in making the input to be more comprehensible. References Emmitt, M., Zbaracki, M. Komesaroff, L. 7 Pollock, J. 2010, language and learning: an introduction to teaching (5th ed), Oxford university press, South Melbourne, vic., pp 177- 189 & 201-203. Lightbown, P. M. & Spada, N. 2013, How languages are learned, 4th edn, Oxford University Press, Oxford. 4. Immersion or language immersion is the method or strategy of teaching a second language whereby the second language of the learner is the medium of classroom instruction. Through this particular method, learners study school subjects such as social studies, math and sciences among others in their second language. Immersion aims at fostering bilingualism, in other terms it makes learners attain language proficiency or communicative competence not only in their L2 but also in their native or first language. Immersion programs vary from one nation to the other because of public opinion, historical antecedents, and language conflict or language policy. Additionally, immersion programs take different formats which are based on the learner’s age, time spent in class, the school subjects that are taught in L2 and native speakers’ participation (Lightbown & Spada, 2013). Studies have been conducted in immersion programs in Quebec as well as other parts of Canada. In other words, the Canadian scholars have pointed out that there is considerable consistency not only in the immersion students’ academic achievement but also linguistic achievement. According to Emmitt, Zbaracki, Komesaroff, Pollock (2010), immersion students are capable to attain and in some cases superior levels of competency in English in domains related to speaking, reading, listening and writing comprehension compared to Anglophone students in all-English programs. Consequently, immersion students are capable of attaining high levels of academic achievement in science and mathematics in comparison to students who are in all-English programs. Consequently Lightbown & Spada, (2013) immersion students in most cases attain higher levels of proficiency in listening and reading comprehension skills at times scoring higher just as the native French speaking students than on tests of writing and speaking; in all other remaining domains, functional proficiency level is mostly at advanced level. Furthermore, immersion students successfully retains a great sense of identity with English-Canadian culture while at the same time acquiring appreciation and understanding of French-Canadian and French Canadians culture that is not evident in general, in non-immersion students (Emmitt, Zbaracki, Komesaroff, Pollock, 2010). Additionally, in learning L2, immersion students in most cases tend to experience less rigid ethno linguistic stereotypes particularly of the target-language community in addition to placing greater necessity on the necessity of inter-ethnic contact. The mentioned advantages are evidence in advantaged as well as disadvantaged children. Reviewing different kinds of immersion programmes proves that total immersion programmes results into better results as compared to partial immersion in addition to early immersion being better than late one. To conclude, the Canadian French settings further results into high level of L2 French proficiency, especially with regard to strategic and discourse competence whereby the learners attain near-native-speaker proficiency (Emmitt, Zbaracki, Komesaroff, Pollock, 2010). Nonetheless, the mentioned proficiency levels are usually not reached in grammar. In a nutshell, there is sufficient evidence that immersion programmes are effective in promoting second language development in an educational setting. References Emmitt, M., Zbaracki, M. Komesaroff, L. 7 Pollock, J. 2010, language and learning: an introduction to teaching (5th ed), Oxford university press, South Melbourne, vic., pp 177- 189 & 201-203. Lightbown, P. M. & Spada, N. 2013, How languages are learned, 4th edn, Oxford University Press, Oxford. 5. The study involved beginners in the Chinese evening classes that were taught for about two hours weekly for an average of ten weeks. In the task, the participants were grouped into self-selected pairs throughout the term. In the setting, seven tasks were used, one editing, five composition and one translation task and they were designed in a manner that they corresponded with the context. The use of pair work or group in the second language classroom is recognized as beneficial. Studies have shown that learners working in pairs or small group use the second language particularly in the teacher fronted class activities. Storch (2002) greater use of second language is essential in foreign language contexts whereby compared to second language context, the classroom context is whereby learners are exposed to and are capable of engaging with L2 input. Emmitt, Zbaracki, Komesaroff, Pollock (2010) points out that it is important for students to be encouraged to work in groups as this will enable them with the necessary practice in improving their fluency. Nonetheless, in terms of accuracy, Storch (2009) in his study found out that if students worked in pairs, the likelihood of performing better in a written task was higher than those working on the similar task individually. Hence it is evident that joint activity enables students to pull their resources together. Another study from different theoretical study also supported the use of pair or small group work in L2 classroom settings. Storch (2002) in his study further proved that when learners work in pairs or groups particularly with a competent speaker of the second language or a colleague they are likely to engage in a number of negotiation moves such as recasts, confirmation checks and requests for clarifications an aspect that is said to make input comprehensible as well as giving direct attention to gaps in the learners linguistic knowledge. While the mentioned focused noticing or attention has been hypothesized as essential for second language acquisition, according to Storch (2002) it has only limited amount to contribute to the researchers understanding of the role of social interaction and social context in language learning which most scholars widely accept as playing a key role in second language learning. Hence, the researchers who are informed by the sociocultural theoretical perspective also promote pair or small group work. Drawing from the works of Vygotsky, sociocultural theory, learners use language to deliberate about L2 and in the process they construct their linguistic resources as well as construct linguistic knowledge of the target language. However, some researchers such as Storch (2002) have argued that students who work in pairs or in groups do not create conducive environment for second language learning. In conclusion, when learners work together with an aim of solving a problem, they are likely to be receptive to the assistance given and offer assistance in return. The assistance can be in the form of providing correction or positive feedback as well as explanation of word meanings and grammatical conventions. References Storch, N. 2002. Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52(1), 119– 158. Emmitt, M., Zbaracki, M. Komesaroff, L. 7 Pollock, J. 2010, language and learning: an introduction to teaching (5th ed), Oxford university press, South Melbourne, vic., pp 177- 189 & 201-203. Read More

Nonetheless, if a language is introduced into the primary education system, learning is likely to be induced instead of being primarily natural and is guided by explicit instruction which is based on educational syllabi, lesson plans and curricular (Halliday, 1993). The basic principle in primary education in learning the first language is that learners have already learned how to mean and their mother tongue is the most powerful meaning making resource which can be drawn on (Ortega, 2009). This is because they have been learning the language and have successfully used it as learning resource for a long term.

From the mentioned, it can be concluded that first language is a resource for learning a new language (Halliday, 1993). In a nutshell, from the meaning perspective, it is important to point out that language teaching should be based on the view that language is a tool of communication. That is language is a social tool that speakers can use to make meaning; learners communicate with other purposefully either verbally or through writings. References Halliday, M.A.K 1993. ‘some grammatical problems in scientific English in M.A.K Halliday & J.

R martin (eds) writing science: literacy and discourse power, Falmer press, London ppl 69-85. Ortega, L. (2009). Understanding second language acquisition. London: Hodder education, pp. 220-1. 2. It is true that through others we become ourselves. According to Vygotsky (1978) language develops as a result of social interactions. According to Vygotsky children are capable of advancing higher levels of performance and knowledge in an interactive environment that is supportive. Therefore, adult conversations with the children is important as they are the origins of thoughts and language.

This is because the conversations provides the children with scaffolding, a supportive structure that assists them to gain new knowledge. Consequently, just like interaction is essential in first language acquisition so is it essential in second language acquisition. Additionally, language is not a system of rules for performing certain socially communicative functions as other scholars posit (Vygotsky, 1978). Each social context in which an infant develops provides a distinct means of interpreting and therefore shapes the first attempt at communication of a child could mean.

It is important to note that distinct interactions and contexts may result into different kinds of language use. Lightbown & Spada, (2013) too adds that language learning is a social process as it is through others that one learn about a given language. Halliday perceives language learning and language as addressing the relationship between language form and social meaning. It can be pointed out that language produced by learners and teachers in a classroom setting is based on their mutual understanding of the cultural and social norms of a language instruction in the whole school the environment.

Supporting Vygotskian view, Lightbown & Spada, (2013) points out that language use is perceived as a social activity that functions as a mediator between classroom practices and the extent at which they agree or adhere with the cultural or social norms of a language instruction in the school in teaching second language. It is further evident that human language emerged particularly from the social role of language in the human interactions. Consequently, environment has a key role in the language development.

In the linguistic environment of a child, adults are perceived as instrumental in the acquisition of a language and the same is evident in L2 acquisition. Additionally, social interaction are the main elements in the language input and processing drawn from social interactions offers a model for negotiation opportunities. According to Vygotsky (1978) learners bring two distinct levels of development to language learning: potential development and actual development and in learning a language, learners move from actual development to proximal development via social interaction.

Read More