CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

It is undebatable that children acquire their first language without explicit learning.

Language acquisition refers to the learning and development of a person’s language. The

learning of a native or first language is called first Language Acquisition, and of a second or

foreign language. A foreign or second language is usually learned but to some degree may

also be acquired or “picked up” depending on the environmental setting. It’s also emphasized

that Second Language Acquisition according to Richards Jack C. John Platt and Heidi Platt in

Chengjun Wang (2009:58), the term “acquisition” is often preferred to “learning” because the

latter term is sometimes linked to a behaviorist theory of learning. This is a contradictive

statement and tends to hit what we learned in the previous discussion we consider that the

acquisition just occurs in first language.

There are three main points broadly discussed regarding the theories in second

language acquisition. They are nativist, environmentalist and interactionist theories. But, this

paper will mainly focus on discussing about environmentalist theory which carries many

questions appear regarding what discussed previously. And the questions are how second

language in the other term can be called acquisition, what is the linguistic input under the

linguistic environment, what are types of linguistic environments for second language

acquisition and, what is an effective environment for foreign language acquisition.

1

CHAPTER II

DISCUSSION

1. Linguistic Input for Second Language Acquisition

One scholar has to say: “The concept of input is perhaps the single most important

concept of second language acquisition. It is trivial to point out that no individual can learn a

second language without input of some sort” (Gass, 1997). Input provide the linguistic data

that a developing linguistic system needs in order for acquisition to be possible. When learner

receives input, they are feeding their developing linguistic system the data it need to start the

process of acquisition. Input is fundamental without input language acquisition will not

success.

1.1 The Role of Input in Second Language Acquisition

Input or primary linguistic data is language that contains instances or examples of

various grammatical forms and other linguistic information in the linguistic environment of

the language acquirer (Schwartz, 1993). In the first language acquisition children used to

receives by input in their environment which they commonly hear in their daily like : “do you

want a drink of water? Don’t forget to wash before dinner, make sure you ate your all

vegetables”. Second language learners such as immigrants or language learner studying

abroad also receive input on their acquisition from they are surrounded by second language

input as they go about daily routines like ; at the bank they may hear “please fill out this

deposit slip”, at the supermarket they may be asked “do you prefer paper or plastic?”. Input

may also be written like billboard along the highway and advertisement or signs on a buss all

constitute source of input. Other source of input may be come from watching movie, listening

to songs, magazine etc. and also interacting with the other in the second language.

The important input characteristic of second language acquisition is that is must be

comprehensible. Such if the input involves of communication of message, the learner must be

able to receive the extract meaning of the message. It does not mean that learners need to

2

understand every word of the message but they should be able to make sense of the message

in some way.

Ellis (1994) makes a distinction between two types of input for acquisition:

interactional and non-interactional input.

1. Interactional input is the input which received in the context of interaction involve

communicating exchange such learner may be conversing with native speakers,

another learners or an instructor. Playing games and conversations with friends,

family and classroom also the example of interactional input.

2. Non-Interactional input is occurs in the context of non-reciprocal discourse (Ellis,

1994) when the learners is not the part of interaction when the process of acquiring

such as listening radio/music or watching television.

1.2 Input Model of Second Language Acquisition

Many scholars in SLA agree that in order to input to be usable for acquisition, it must

be noticed or attended to in some way (e.g, Gass, 1997; Van Patten, 1996; wong & simard,

2001). What do we mean by “attending” to input?. Currently, SLA researchers are not all in

agreement as to what attending to input entails. Schmidt (1990, 1993, 1995, 2001) said that

only feature of input that have been consciously noticed by learners are usable for

acquisition. Other researchers say that input must be “detected” but that this detection does

not have to involve conscious awareness (Tomlin & Villa, 1994).

There two models of Input of SLA:

A. Input Model by Van Patten (1996)

When learners attend to or notice input and comprehend the message, a form-meaning

connection is made. Form could also be use at the word level to refer to word form (Barcroft,

2000) for example the word “boy” is has the form of letters “b-o-y”. Meaning is refer to the

meaning of word form, example from “boy” the meaning is “young male”. When learner hear

“boy” they understand that boy is refer to young male, here Form-Meaning Connection is

happen. Form-Meaning Connection is the relationship between meaning and the way to

encoded it linguistically (young male = boy).

3

Input

↓ => (Input Processing)

Intake

↓ => ( System processing)

Developing System

↓ => (Output Processing)

Output

I. Input Processing:

How learners make sense out of the language they hear and how they get “linguistic

data” (the creation of intake)

II. System processing:

Accommodation: how learner actually incorporated a grammatical form or

structure into the implicit system of the language they are creating.

Restructuring: incorporation of intake into developing system

III. Output Processing:

How learners acquire the ability to make use of the implicit knowledge they are

acquiring to produce utterance in real time.

Form-meaning connection also known as intake and the process in SLA that involved

in converting input into intake is called Input Processing. This intake is held in working

memory and has the potential to be internalized. When this happens, the developing linguistic

system must make room for accommodate this new linguistic data. Once a new intake has

been accommodated, the developing system changes and is restructuring. The process that

entails accommodation of intake data into developing of that system is called system change.

Finally, linguistic data that has been incorporated into the developing system may be

eventually accessed by learners as output or production, this process called output system.

4

B. Input Model by Gass (1997)

INPUT

↓

APPERCEIVED INPUT

↓

COMPREHENDED INPUT

↓

INTAKE

↓

INTERACTION

↓

OUTPUT

Apperceived input is input that has been notice in some way by the learner and

functions as a priming device that prepares the input for further analysis (Gass, 1997) like in

Van Patter model, Gass’s model also shown that in order to apperceived input to become

intake, must be comprehended. Comprehension of input entails that the learner analyzes the

input in some way to extract meaning.

1.3 Linguistic and Conversational Adjustment to Non-Native Speakers.

What the nature of the input to language learner? Ferguson (1971), in a study

designed to look at issues of linguistic simplicity, noted that in language directed toward

linguistically deficient individuals such young children and Non-Native speakers of language,

Native speakers make adjustments to their speech. Speech directed toward young children

called “baby talk” while speech directed toward linguistically deficient Non-Native Speakers

it called “foreigner talk.

The interaction between Native Speakers (NSs) and Non-Native Speakers (NNSs)

become a common phenomena. In this phenomena we can see how native speakers

communicate with NNSS, they will make appropriate linguistic and conversational

adjustment depending on the language competence of their partners. Usually NSS modify

their speech to be simpler and easier for NNSS. For example: NS usually speak slowly, make

5

clear of pronunciation in every word, there are pauses between utterances . The also use a

more generic term to mention specific thing, like they rather say “flower” than “tulip”. Some

time NSS also separate the utterance with more repetition, more clarification, and more

comprehension check. Both of linguistic and conversational adjustment purposed to make

speech more easily to be understood ,and it commonly call as Foreigner Talk (FT). So FT

has a meaning as the simplified version that sometime use by Native speaker when

communicate addressing to Non-Native speakers.

As discussed by Road Ellis there are two type of foreigner talk ; grammatical and

ungrammatical. Several early studies, notably Ferguson (1975) and Meisel (1975), reported

that Native Speaker of English, French, German, and Finnish switched to an ungrammatical

variety of their language when addressing Non-Native Speaker. Ferguson claimed, was a

socially conditioned speech variety, which he named “foreigner talk”. The ungrammatically

was the result of three main processes : Omission, Expansion, and

replacement/rearrangement (Ferguson 1975; Ferguson and DeBose 1976).

Omission is deletion of some part of speech or part of grammatically terms.

Expansion has meaning as addition an unanalyzed tags to question or as confirmation of

question and also addition as insertion subject pronoun of imperative sentence. While

replacement/ arrangement include forming negatives with no plus the negated item, replacing

subject with object pronoun, converting possessive adjective-plus-noun construction to noun-

plus object pronoun.

Example of ungrammatically processes:

Process Normal Native Speaker Foreigner Talk Equivalent

Omission

- Tobe

- Copulas

- Conjunction

- Subject pronouns

- Inflection morphology

- Why do you cry?

- That car looks fast

- The water was warm,

but I didn't go

swimming.

- She is speaking right

now

- Why you cry?

- That car fast

- The water warm, I

no go swimming.

- She speak now

Expansion

- Additional Confirmation - Are you member of this - you member of this 6

(to question)

- Additional subject

pronoun before imperative

class?

- Close the door!

class, yes?

- You close door!

Replacement/ rearrangement

- Negative with no plus

- Replacing subject with

object pronoun

- converting possessive

adjective-plus-noun

construction to noun-plus

object pronoun.

- I don’t read your

messages.

- He kill himself

- My sister doesn’t like the

man

- I no read your

messages

- Him kill himself.

- Sister me no like

man.

Learn for those research of the FT phenomena may appeared a question like, why is

input to Non-Native Speakers sometimes grammatically and sometime ungrammatically? The

answer of this question is unclear. Long (1981) identified four factor which tend to predict

deviant speech by the Native Speakers.

Very Second Language proficiency of Non-Native Speaker

Perceived higher social status of Native Speaker

Prior FT experience, but only with Non-Native Speaker of low SL proficient

Spontaneity of the conversation

2. Comprehensible Input for Second Language Acquisition

According to Krashen's input hypothesis suggests that humans acquire language in

only one way, it is by understanding messages or by receiving comprehensible input (Wilson,

2000). However, Krashen suggests that this comprehensible input should be one step beyond

the learner’s current language ability in order to allow learners to continue to progress with

their language development. The hypothesis is more popular to be called as i+1, where i

represents the current competence of a learner and 1 for the next level (Krashen, 2009, pp.

20-21).

7

Furthermore, Freeman and Long (1991, p. 140) asserted that development from a

learner's current stage of IL development, i, to the next stage, i+1, is achieved through the

learner comprehending language. Thus, Krashen believes that comprehension is necessary in

order for the input to become intake.

In addition, Krashen states that to move from stage i to i+1, it is necessary for the

learner to understand input that contains i+1. 'Understand' here means that the learner focuses

on the meaning or the message being communicated and not the form of the utterance only

(Park, 2002). The main assumptions of the Krashen's input hypothesis are as follows: (1)

access to comprehensible input is characteristic of all cases of successful language

acquisition, in both first and second language acquisition; (2) greater quantities of

comprehensible input seem to result in better or faster L2 acquisition; and (3) lack of access

to comprehensible input results in little or no acquisition (Long, 1982 as cited in Park, 2002).

From the assumptions above, it can be derived that the role of input comprehension is

very important in the process of second language acquisition (SLA). Furthermore, in relation

to the linguistic environment, there are three types of linguistic environment chosen as the

potential sources of comprehensible input based on Park's research study: (1) modified input;

(2) interactionally modified input; and (3) modified output (Park, 2002).

Modified Input

Modified input is characterized by input that has been modified or simplified in some

way before the learner sees or hears it. Input modifications can be repetitions, paraphrasing,

and reduction of sentence length and complexity when speaker addressing a child or an L2

learner. This modified speech usually occurs in baby talk, foreigner talk, and teacher talk.

Within the context of SLA research, simplified input most often refers to L2 input that

has been modified by a native speaker (NS) to facilitate non-native speaker (NNS)

comprehension, which is called foreigner talk (FT). It is believed that such simplification

serves to facilitate comprehension better.

Based on many studies related to modified input, it can be concluded that modified

input (whether simplified or elaborated) enhances NNS comprehension. However, there have

also been reports of evidence that different types of modifications may have differential

effects for learners at different proficiency levels. Therefore, such evidence may be the case

that the definition of modified speech can be quite different for learners at different stages of

development.

8

At this point, it can be speculated as follows: (1) linguistic adjustments made in NS

speech when addressing a NNS have a considerable effect in increasing comprehension, (2)

input simplification may facilitate comprehension for beginners, and (3) elaborative

modifications may be more suitable for advanced students (Oh, 2001 as cited by Park, 2002).

Interactionally Modified Input

The next linguistic environment chosen as the second potential source of

comprehensible input for L2 acquisition is characterized by opportunities for NS-NNS

interactions in which “both parties modify and restructure the interaction to arrive at mutual

understanding” (Pica et al., 1987 as cited by Park, 2002). According to Long (1982, 1983),

the important distinction between modified input and modified interaction is that the talk is

not only modified by the speaker but also directed to the learner (cited in Park, 2002).

Furthermore, Long identified that there are strategies employed by both parties to

negotiate their way through the conversational discourse. These strategies included aspects of

conversation such as comprehension checks, clarification requests, topic shifts, and self and

other repetitions and expansions. Long claims that speakers modify interactions using these

devices in order to avoid conversation problems, and repair discourse when non-

understanding sequences arise (Park, 2002).

Later, the term of Long's interactional modification became more widely referred to

as negotiation. Long defines negotiation as “...the process in which, in an effort to

communicate, learners and competent speakers provide and interpret signals of their own and

their interlocutor’s perceived comprehension, thus provoking adjustments to linguistic form,

conversational structure, message content, or all three, until an acceptable level of

understanding is achieved” (Park, 2002).

Based on the above explanation, it can be assumed that the informational structure of

the two-way communication involved in interactionally modified input obliges NSs and

NNSs to negotiate for meaning, and in an effort to communicate, adjustments to linguistic

form, conversational structure, and message content are sought , in order to make what they

say comprehensible to their interlocutors. In addition, this negotiation process of seeking

acceptable meaning helps to make input comprehensible (Freeman and Long, 1991, p. 114).

9

Modified Output

The third type of linguistic environment chosen as the last potential source of

comprehensible input is the one where a learner modifies his/her output to make it more

target-like, thereby making it more comprehensible to the interlocutor (Park, 2002).

The theoretical basis on the importance of output was derived from Swain's

Comprehensible Output Hypothesis and Long's Interaction Hypothesis. Swain (1985) argues

that comprehensible input is not sufficient for successful second language acquisition (SLA),

but that opportunities for non-native speakers (NNSs) to produce comprehensible output

(CO) are also necessary (cited in Shehadeh, 2004, p. 352).

In addition, Swaim (1985) states that when learners are required to produce pushed

output, they may be forced to move from 'semantic processing' (required for comprehending

input) to 'syntactic processing' (needed for encoding meaning). She argues that producing the

target language (TL) may serve as “the trigger that forces the learner to pay attention to the

means of expression needed in order to successfully convey his or her own intended

meaning” (cited in Moinzadeh and Youhannaee, 2012, p. 107).

Swain (1995) also identifies a number of different roles for output: (1) it may help

learners to recognize a gap (i.e., notice) between what they want to say and what they can say

(2) it serves as a means by which learners can test hypotheses about comprehensibility or

linguistic correctness, and (3) it can help learners to develop metalinguistic knowledge of

how the L2 works. Last, she maintains the position that both comprehensible input and

comprehensible output are important for L2 acquisition (cited in Park, 2002).

Modified output is also derived from Long's interaction hypothesis (1983, 1985 as

cited by Park, 2002). He recognized that learners could get interactionally modified input in

the process of negotiation. This input, taken by the learners’ previous output, helps them to

comprehend the input, and focus their attention on new or partially learned linguistic forms,

which enables their acquisition.

Furthermore, in his interaction hypothesis, the position that learner output facilitates

acquisition when it takes modified input from a NS, and viewed NNS output as a sort of a

trigger for foreigner talk. This meaning negotiation process will lead learners to modify their

own output which in turn may stimulate the acquisition process (Park, 2002).

To summarize, these three different kinds of linguistic environment are all potential as

sources of comprehensible input. Each linguistic environment is inherently related to each

10

other, and that the three types are inevitably integrated. As Ellis (1999 cited by Park, 2002)

says “What constitutes interaction for one learner serves as potential input for other learners.”

Last, it should be specifically noted that Modified Output does not occur by itself, and

that Interactionally Modified Input and Modified Output work in partner since one learner’s

modified output often works as another learner’s comprehensible input.

3. Types of Linguistic Environments in Second Language Acquisition

The linguistic environment for language acquisition is very important. For the

children, they often exposure to different languages and speak in different languages. They

do not only acquire their first language, but also can acquire the foreign language.

Learning environments places or situations where students are involved and are

learning, sometimes consciously like at school but often fully unconsciously like in the

family.

A typical formal learning environment is the classroom and outside the classroom.

There are many other environments: real informal environments such as café, theatre, home,

museum, playground, etc.

Moreover, nowadays the most popular informal learning environments are virtual like

blogs, social networks, forum, chats, etc. Greenfield (2009: 69) states, “Virtual informal

learning environments produce learners with new cognitive skills: strengths in iconic

representation and spatial visualization but weaknesses in higher-order cognitive processes:

abstract vocabulary, mindfulness, reflection, inductive problem solving, critical thinking, and

imagination.”

There are basically two sorts of linguistic environments: artificial, or formal

environments, found for the most part in the classroom, and natural or informal environments

(Krashen, 2002: 40).

3.1 Formal Linguistic Environments

Formal, from ‘form’, means that the teaching action happens inside a structure,

usually school. A fixed place with a fixed timetable following fixed goals with various

11

methods, supported by some but not unlimited means, and foreseeing evaluations and

examinations. That is to say this kind of action is structured, organized, intentional and

supposed to have feedback that is also conscious and intentional (Gramegna, 2012: 1).

Today, in language schools all over the world, most of students consists of people

who have studied English at school but feel they know nothing and want to start again.

However, this is not to say that classroom instruction is useless. Indeed, there is

evidence to suggest that instruction does help. For example, learners who have had formal

instruction and who then spent time in the country concerned are likely to achieve a higher

degree of accuracy than those who have not had formal instruction. Yet, language lessons on

their own bring no guarantee of success. Formal instruction is rarely a sufficient condition for

learning a language (Chengjun, 2004: 59).

Therefore, to sum up, there are some advantages and disadvantages in formal

linguistic environments.

Some advantages of formal teaching are that teachers' professionality, planning of

actions, fixed goals and accreditations lead often to results.

Whereas, the disadvantages are that students' learning times are not always the same

as the requested times, that school activities are often meaningless for students and too far

from students' real life.

3.2 Informal Linguistic Environments

Informal means that the learning process happens unconsciously, unintentionally,

incidentally, naturally, at anywhere and anytime without any method, by various means,

alone or in cooperation with others, often for pleasure (Gramegna, 2012: 2).

The following is for example a definition of informal learning by the Commission of

the European Communities (2001: 32-33; in Gramegna, 2012). Informal learning resulting

from daily life activities related to work, family or leisure. It is not structured (in terms of

learning objectives, learning time or learning support) and typically does not lead to

certification. Informal learning may be intentional but in most cases it is non-intentional.

Most of us know or know of people who have learnt to speak a foreign language quite

fluently without any teaching at all: people who travel and work abroad a lot; people who

stay in their own country but who mix with speakers of another language. Even quite young

children, who drop out of school, often classed as “unteachable”, become unofficial tourist

guides and end up managing to communicate in several foreign languages. They are not

12

always totally accurate, but they achieve a level of language ability that is entirely adequate

for their needs. There is another case that many young children whose parents speak different

languages (first language and foreign language) can acquire a second language in

circumstances similar to those of first language acquisition, the vast majority of people are

not exposed to a second language until much later.

CHAPTER III

CONCLUSION

And the conclusion of what discussed today, that there some differences view among

the linguists, whether acquisition process and term occur in Second Language or not.

Environmentlist ague that acquisition proses can happen caused by environment setting as

they say that an organism’s nurture or experience are more importance to development than

it’s nature or inate contributions. meaning that experience can be reache only in the

invironment. When learner receives input, they are feeding their developing linguistic system

the data it needs to start the process of acquisition. Input is fundamental without input

language acquisition will not success. More over the linguistic environment for language

acquisition is very important, especially for the children, they often exposure to different

languages and speak in different languages. They do not only acquire their first language, but

also can acquire the foreign language.

13

References

Chengjun, W. (2009). On Linguistic Environment for Foreign Language Acquisition.

Chongqing: Yangtze Normal University Press.

European Commission (2011). European Qualifications Framework. About EQF. Last

accessed November 2013. ec.europa.eu/eqf/about_en.htm

Freeman, D. L. & Long, M. H. (1991). An Introduction to Second Langugae Acquisition

Research. London: Longman Group.

Gramegna, B. (2012), Formal Language Teaching versus Informal Language Learning

Supported by Mobile Devices, Ca' Foscari University, Venice.

Greenfield, P. (2009), Technology and Informal Education: What Is Taught, What Is

Learned, Science ,Vol. 323, No. 5910, p. 69-71.

Krashen, S. D (2002). Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Los

Angeles: Pergamon Press Inc.

Krashen, S. D. (2009). Principle and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Los

Angeles: Pergamon Press Inc.

Moinzadeh, A. & Youhannaee, M. (2012). Recasts, Modified Output and L2 Development: A

Case of Persian EFL Learners. English Language and Literature Studies, Vol. 2,

No.1, pp. 100-111.

Park, E. S. (2002). On Three Potential Sources of Comprehensible Input for Second

Language Acquisition. TESOL, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 1-21.

14

Shahedah, A. (2004). Modified output during task-based pair interaction and group

interaction. Journal of Applied Linnguistic, Vol. 1.3. pp. 351-382.

Wilson, R. (2000). A Summary of Stephen Krashen's “Principles and Practice in Second Language

Acquisition”. Last accessed November 2013,

languageimpact.com/articles/rw/krashenbk.htm

15