PQE 7001 SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

JIGSAW READING WEEK 7

LECTURER’S NAME:

DR FATIHA BT SENOM

GROUP MEMBER’S NAME:

PQE180017 SSHIVAPRIYA A/P SUNDRAN

PQE180018 SYAHIRAH FAROK

PQE180019 SYAHIRAH MOHD SOFIAN

PQE180020 YAKEASWARI A/P MAHENDRA RAJ

PQE180021 SHARVNI A/P ARUMUGAM

 Sociolinguistic approach focuses on the outcomes of the process and also the impact
of social factors on cognitive processes. The results of these sociolinguistic approaches
contribute to the acquisition of a new linguistic system. Firth and Wagner studied the effects
of specific aspects of social context on linguistic structure of language learner. According to
the results, linguistic variables could change. L2 learners produced a more fluent and accurate
interlanguage in some social contexts. As for adult L2 learners, they set up their own
discourse domains according to their view of social settings that require a certain language
forms and structures. Therefore, its language learners are able to produce interlanguages with
different linguistic characteristics in different discourse domains. However, failure to acquire
L2 variety will result to learners using their L1 in their discourse. When learners do not
obtain an adequate amount of L2 variety, they will tend to switch to their L1 in order to
communicate. Hence, second language acquisition is affected by social factors. In generative
linguistics, competence is viewed as categorical as the differences in grammatical production
can be characterised as language performance whereas variation has nothing to do with
competence. The target of learning a second language should be multicompetence instead of
native-competence which will result in difficulties and anxiety of learning the language.

YAKEAS

SHIVA LEVEL 1
SHARVNI LEVEL 2
 Time affects the extent to which social and linguistic variables lead to changes in the
language systems of grammar 1 and grammar 2. It does this in at least two ways. First, the
relative capture time affects the weighting of options between the two forms. The earliest
forms studied are deeper and automatic, and the later forms studied require more attention
and control. The sociolinguistic model predicts that shaded and aligned forms of speech
deepen in the form of unshaded forms, so that they cannot be accessed automatically. They
require more attention and control in their production than forms that are not obscured. This
characteristic feature of this sociolinguistic model is especially attractive because it contains
proven evidence that some variants or languages known to the speaker are more accessible
and automated than others. Level 3, or the time variation, lies in the fact that it predicts the
process with which IL dynamics change with time. The sociolinguistic model of SLA
predicts two types of changes: a change from above, where new forms are clearly studied in
school conditions, and an upward change when new forms are implicitly internalized
(Preston, 1989, pp. 143–144; Tarone, 2007c). In 1998, Long stated that there is only evidence
that a social context can influence the cognitive processes and outcomes of SLA. This
testimony was in a report by Taron and Liu (1995) on a longitudinal study by Liu (1991) on
Bob, a five-year-old Chinese boy learning English L2 in Australia. The way for students to
consider issues L2. Bob seemed to acquire questions in English in a different order in
different social environments. In a socio-linguistic SLA study on level 3 (related to timing)
Lybeck (2002) found that participants who were members of Norwegian social networks had
language functions like those of their peers whose social networks were open. Uniplex
developed less speech functions. Liebeck experienced a change due to contextual social
factors. A student with a very native Norwegian phonology at the time of 1 left his social
network in the target culture for a year. At that time, her self-tuning sociocultural identity and
attitude to the target culture changed, and she stopped accusing herself. For time 2 she had a
dramatic drop-in native, with a more American version of the Norwegian R and a
significantly lower global rating of its general phonology. In theoretical studies that are
conducted over a longer period, the development of specific forms of L2 in the language of
individuals studying individually interacts regularly with a few interlocutors associated with
well-defined social contexts. Ultimately, we need sociolinguistic studies that link the social
context with a change in the system of the logic of time of life in order to refute the claim that
acquisition and social context are not interconnected.

SHARVNI CONCLUSION