Second linguistic communication refers to any linguistic communication learned in add-on to a individuals first linguistic communication. Second linguistic communication acquisition so is the procedure by which people learn a 2nd linguistic communication. Based on the demographic informations collected by the California Department of Education, one 4th of California ‘s public schools ‘ pupils are English scholars. That means that these pupils primary linguistic communication is non English and they need to larn the English linguistic communication in order to make good in school. Once they have learned adequate English to win in school, they are redesignated out of the EL plan. Redesignation is a term used for sorting pupils who have tested at the Advanced degree on the California English Language Development Test ( CELDT ) .
Harmonizing to the California Department of Education, redesignation takes topographic point when EL pupils have met the multiple standards to sort them as holding the same proficiency in English as native talkers. During the 2010-2011 school twelvemonth, there were 43,604 English Learner pupils in Fresno County entirely. Of these pupils, merely 5,250 were redesignated as Fluent English Proficient, intending they had acquired plenty of the English linguistic communication to make good in their faculty members. Of the staying pupils, 26,000 are waiting to run into the standards for redesignation or to go out the EL plan, while about 12,000 of them are still larning the English linguistic communication and non yet ready for redesignation ( ) .
is every bit complex as the figure of linguistic communications spoken in the universe today Every pupil without a mental disablement is able to get their primary linguistic communication, yet merely some of these pupils become proficient in a 2nd linguistic communication. Educators every bit good as research workers in the field of instruction and linguistics continue to hold inquiries about factors that enhance or hinder 2nd linguistic communication acquisition. One of the most asked inquiries is why are some pupils able to larn a 2nd linguistic communication with small attempt, while others are non as successful in larning a 2nd linguistic communication ( Moyer, 1999 ) .
Educators have been baffled by this phenomenon for decennaries and legion research workers have investigated the issue, nevertheless, no 1 has been able to nail the major causes for the hold or acceleration in larning a 2nd linguistic communication. There are a battalion of variables that come into drama when looking at 2nd linguistic communication acquisition. Between 1950 and 1970, assorted surveies were conducted in different states and found that, in many instances, aptitude and motive contributed to the successful acquisition of a 2nd linguistic communication ( Shumann, 1975 ) . While some research workers originally thought that age may be one of the major factors in the success or failure of obtaining a 2nd or foreign linguistic communication, others think there are a figure of variables that affect 2nd linguistic communication acquisition ( Bialystok & A ; Hakuta, 1999 ) . The critical period hypothesis will be looked at closely in this literature reappraisal and what portion of linguistic communication acquisition is impacted by the age factor.
Current Research Goals
How do pupils who speak a linguistic communication other than English become proficient in the English linguistic communication or a 2nd linguistic communication and what are the variables that impact their 2nd linguistic communication acquisition? Do pupils ‘ ages have an impact on how successful they become in geting a 2nd linguistic communication? And if so, how much does the age factor impact pupils ‘ ability to larn a 2nd linguistic communication?
The intent of this literature reappraisal is to take a closer expression at what the groundss say about 2nd linguistic communication acquisition. Again, California has a immense population of English Learners, which means that they speak a primary linguistic communication other than English and are larning English as their 2nd linguistic communication. However, many of these pupils are non able to accomplish command of the 2nd linguistic communication which is English, hence, can non go out the English Learner plan and be classified as a Redesignated Fluent English Proficient ( RFEP ) pupil. Specifically, the subject to be explored farther trades with the age factor and how that affects the EL pupils ‘ in the Fresno County schools to win in their faculty members. How much is the age variable lending to or impeding pupils from going proficient in the 2nd linguistic communication larning spheres?
Factors Affecting Second Language Acquisition
Harmonizing to Schumann ‘s survey, factors such as linguistic communication daze, civilization daze, attitude, motive, instructional method, age, and empathy all affect the acquisition of a 2nd linguistic communication. However, Schumann chose to look at merely three variables: attitude, motive, and empathy. He found that pupils ‘ attitude towards the mark linguistic communication determines how much or how small they can larn that linguistic communication. Besides, he pointed out that pupils ‘ motive to larn another linguistic communication is the key to larning a 2nd linguistic communication whether it be for carry throughing coursework or for communicating grounds, and last of all he says that “ empathetic ” people are able to larn another linguistic communication more so than people without the “ empathetic personality ” ( Schumann, 1975 ) .
Another research was done by Marinova-Todd, Marshall, and Snow about the three misconceptions about age and 2nd linguistic communication acquisition. In this survey, they suggested that when looking to back up the critical period hypothesis, research workers have misinterpreted, misattributed, and misemphasized their findings. Oftentimes, people assume that pupils are speedy scholars compared to grownups through pure observations. Other times, we turn to neuroscientist to endorse us up on linguistic communication acquisition ; yet, their findings do non corroborate how linguistic communications are learned. Last, grownups are hindered from their ultimate attainment because of the deficiency of motive, committedness and support from their environment and non needfully because they can non larn. So, it is sound to state that in the terminal, it ‘s non that there is a critical period in which all linguistic communication must be learned, but that a individual ‘s societal, psychological and educational sphere affect one ‘s 2nd linguistic communication proficiency ( Marinova-Todd, Marshall, & A ; Snow, 2000 ) .
The popular belief that kids get a 2nd linguistic communication more easy and at a quicker rate than grownups has been around for half a century. Besides, is the critical period hypothesis, claiming that kids have this window of chance to larn a linguistic communication before their pubescence old ages. ( Abello-Contesse, 2009 ) . Certain surveies assert that younger kids get a higher 2nd linguistic communication proficiency and are superior in “ ultimate attainment ” in the 2nd linguistic communication, nevertheless, older pupils or grownups can get the 2nd linguistic communication faster than younger kids but their existent attainment of the 2nd linguistic communication may non be every bit good as that of the younger kids ( Krashen, Long, & A ; Scarcella, 1979 ) .
Although many earlier research workers claimed that there is this critical period in which linguistic communication has to be taught to pupils, Francis disagrees. He stated that if the critical period hypothesis was true and if there was such a thing, all younger 2nd linguistic communication scholars would all talk like the indigens and there would be no opportunities for the older scholars. However research workers had documented near native public presentations by older scholars and those really immature scholars could be picked out from native talkers. Francis confers that if pupils are able to larn their primary linguistic communication usually, this besides transfers over to the success they have in larning the 2nd linguistic communication ( Francis, 2005 ) . Abello-Contesse reaffirms many of the surveies mentioned above that there is no critical period for acquisition, hence, no charming age for geting a 2nd linguistic communication. He besides notes that older and younger scholars are able to accomplish the same degree of proficiency depending on the acquisition environment ( Abello-Contess, 2009 ) .
Birdsong takes a selective expression at age and 2nd linguistic communication acquisition and processing. Brain based and behavioural informations are looked at to acquire a better image of the troubles environing 2nd linguistic communication acquisition. He concludes that the aging encephalon does in consequence contribute to some troubles in 2nd linguistic communication acquisition. By looking at big 2nd linguistic communication scholars and comparing that to first linguistic communication acquisition of kids, there are many facets of larning that is age related and affects the acquisition of the 2nd linguistic communication ( Birdsong, 2006 ) .
In add-on to the critical factors of age and motive, direction was evaluated by Moyer to see what the result was for ultimate attainment in a group of motivated alumnus pupil teachers who used German on a day-to-day footing. The findings indicate that many variables play a function in 2nd linguistic communication acquisition along with age and that age entirely is non the cause of ultimate attainment of 2nd linguistic communication acquisition. This survey was to counter the critical period hypothesis as believed by old research workers ( Moyer, 1999 ) .
Furthermore, Bialystok ‘s research in support of recent grounds of a sensitive period for 2nd linguistic communication acquisition found that the most of import factor impacting acquisition is the linguistic communication construction between the first and the 2nd linguistic communication. In one instance, the age at which the 2nd linguistic communication was acquired does non look to hold an impact on acquisition as much. However, in one of the surveies, the length of abode or clip spent talking the 2nd linguistic communication seemed to be of great significance. The research contradicts other old findings since it states that if there is a sensitive period in the first linguistic communication so holding had that period would do it easy to larn the 2nd linguistic communication. Besides, if there is a sensitive period in larning the 2nd linguistic communication so there must be a sensitive period in the first linguistic communication. In decision, there is non adequate grounds in this peculiar research to back up the fact that 2nd linguistic communication acquisition is determined by maturational factors and that at this clip, there is non a declaration to 2nd linguistic communication acquisition yet ( Bialystok, 1997 ) .
Munoz and Singleton wanted to turn to the age related attainment consequence on 2nd linguistic communication acquisition and whether that could be explained by the critical period. Before that they took a expression at the other factors that are involved in 2nd linguistic communication acquisition. They found that the sum and quality of input, scholar ‘s orientation and attitude, the conditions for acquisition, and the critical period hypothesis are some of the factors impacting the acquisition of a 2nd linguistic communication. A popular position of success in 2nd linguistic communication larning they found is the intimacy to native talker public presentation and in relation to the age inquiry. The common observation is that in non-instructional scenes, early acquirers tend to stop up identical from native talkers whereas subsequently acquirers do non ( Munoz & A ; Singleton, 2011 ) .
Catherine A. Snow does non believe in sensitive period hypothesis. She stated that sensitive period merely exists for address perceptual experience. The age differences in 2nd linguistic communication acquisition abilities are inconsistent, and sometimes to the advantage of older scholars. It is believed so that the successful acquisition of a 2nd linguistic communication could be a possibility for all those who have acquired the first linguistic communication of course and could larn a 2nd linguistic communication when the societal and educational experiential spheres are made possible ( Snow & A ; Hoefnagel-Hohle, 1978 ) .
Some other factors found to hold an impact on 2nd linguistic communication acquisition are: identify with the 2nd linguistic communication, linguistic communication aptitude, attitude towards the 2nd linguistic communication, and the closer the linguistic communication construction from the native linguistic communication to the 2nd linguistic communication. There is a great variableness in positions of critical period hypothesis by the different research workers. While one research worker says that the critical period ends at nine old ages of age, another one says that it ‘s five old ages of age. Still one claims that the period ends at pubescence. Cummins proficiency theoretical accounts of BICS and CALP says that an norm of 2-3 old ages will be needed to larn basic interpersonal communicating accomplishments or BICS, while it may take 5-7 old ages for kids to be able to be fluid English talkers or have acquired the necessary cognitive academic linguistic communication proficiency or CALP. He concluded that older pupils who are literate in their native linguistic communication can reassign the content cognition from the native linguistic communication to the 2nd linguistic communication thereby hastening the 2nd linguistic communication acquisition or SLA procedure ( Cummins, 1981 ) .
Collier based her survey on age on reaching, English proficiency degree, basic literature and mathematics in the native linguistic communication, and the figure of old ages of schooling in English to set up 2nd linguistic communication proficiency. She learned that Limited English Proficient pupils between the ages of 8-11 old ages of age were the fastest winners. It merely took them between 2-5 old ages to make the 50th percentile on standardised trials, whereas the 5-7 old ages old pupils were 1-3 old ages behind the 8-11 old ages old. Last, she found that the 12-15 twelvemonth olds had the greatest troubles and will necessitate an norm of 6-8 old ages to make grade degree norms ( Collier, 1987 ) .
Looking at age of in-migration, length of abode and age at proving is the other attack that Stevens took in happening grounds to back up the critical period hypothesis. She believes that the age at in-migration is the oncoming of the 2nd linguistic communication acquisition period. Since most research is on ultimate attainment, research workers tend to look at grownups and less on kids. There seems to be a negative relationship between the 2nd linguistic communication proficiency and age. It was noted that the longer a individual resides in a state, the higher the mark was so so the length of residence is proportionate to the degree of 2nd linguistic communication proficiency. After reading Hakuta ‘s research ( as stated by that there is a biological procedure associated with aging due to the steady diminution in the successes achieved by older pupils thereby bespeaking that there is no critical period.
