Second Language Acquisition Quotes

Mein Herz ist voller Dankbarkeit, aber meine Armut an deutschen Worten zwingt mich zu großer Sparsamkeit des Ausdruckes.

A true TBLT course, conversely, requires an investment of resources in a needs analysis and production of materials appropriate for a particular population of learners.

Learn Languages the Right Way. Language acquisition games and abstract communicative method are bullshit. The second-best way to learn a foreign language is alone in a room doing skull-numbing rote memorization of vocabulary, grammar, key phrases, and colloquialisms. The best way is in bed.

some linguists have also concluded that, while the innatist perspective provides a plausible explanation for first language acquisition, something else is required for second language acquisition, since it so often falls short of full success. From the cognitive psychology perspective, however, first and second language acquisition are seen as drawing on the same processes of perception, memory, categorization, and generalization. The difference lies in the circumstances of learning as well as in what the learners already know about language and how that prior knowledge shapes their perception of the new language.

Tasks are the real-world activities people think of when planning, conducting, or recalling their day. That can mean things like brushing their teeth, preparing breakfast, reading a newspaper, taking a child to school, responding to e-mail messages, making a sales call, attending a lecture or a business meeting, having lunch with a colleague from work, helping a child with homework, coaching a soccer team, and watching a TV program. Some tasks are mundane, some complex.

TBLT's solution is to employ an analytic (task) syllabus, but with a focus on form to deal with problematic linguistic features, and provision of opportunities for intentional learning to speed up the learning process and to supplement the adult's weaker capacity for incidental learning, especially instance learning.

There is some evidence, after all, that a certain degree of tension, or classroom anxiety, can have a positive effect on learning (Scovel 1978), probably because it activates a process known to be critical for language learning: attention.

Like first language learners, second language learners do not learn language simply through imitation and practice. They produce sentences that are not exactly like those they have heard. These new sentences appear to be based on internal cognitive processes and prior knowledge that interact with the language they hear around them. Both first and second language acquisition are best described as developing systems with their own evolving rules and patterns, not simply as imperfect versions of the target language.

L2 Learners are (55%) affected by their target language and (35%) by their mother tongue. There are both the target language and Morphological Translation Equivalence that pair affixes of the two languages share with each other which enhance the Semantic Transparency of affixes

They have a right to expect language courses, like medical treatments, to be relevant and, ideally, to be designed just for them or, at the very least, for learners like them. That is why, to be rational, relevant, and successful, language course development should begin with an identification of learners' goals and an analysis of their present or future communicative needs to achieve those goals.

Displaying the key elements of L1 and L2 acquisition, O’Neill, R. (1998) assesses that acquiring L2 as children acquire their L1 is a “wishful thinking and… based on a profound misconception about the nature of L2 learning - just as it is a misconception about how L1 acquisition occurs”. Hereinafter, O’Neill, R. (1998) maintains that “the best way to explore the differences between the two processes is to view them side-by-side – in parallel”.

My reading has been lamentably desultory and immedthodical. Odd, out of the way, old English plays, and treatises, have supplied me with most of my notions, and ways of feeling. In everything that relates to science, I am a whole Encyclopaedia behind the rest of the world. I should have scarcely cut a figure among the franklins, or country gentlemen, in King John's days. I know less geography than a schoolboy of six weeks standing. To me a map of old Ortelius is as authentic as Arrowsmith. I do not know whereabout Africa merges into Asia, whether Ethiopia lie in one or other of those great divisions, nor can form the remotest, conjecture of the position of New South Wales, or Van Diemen's Land. Yet do I hold a correspondence with a very dear friend in the first named of these two Terrae Incognitae. I have no astronomy. I do not know where to look for the Bear or Charles' Wain, the place of any star, or the name of any of them at sight. I guess at Venus only by her brightness - and if the sun on some portentous morn were to make his first appearance in the west, I verily believe, that, while all the world were grasping in apprehension about me, I alone should stand unterrified, from sheer incuriosity and want of observation. Of history and chronology I possess some vague points, such as one cannot help picking up in the course of miscellaneous study, but I never deliberately sat down to a chronicle, even of my own country. I have most dim apprehensions of the four great monarchies, and sometimes the Assyrian, sometimes the Persian, floats as first in my fancy. I make the widest conjectures concerning Egypt, and her shepherd kings. My friend M., with great pains taking, got me to think I understood the first proposition in Euclid, but gave me over in despair at the second. I am entirely unacquainted with the modern languages, and, like a better man than myself, have 'small Latin and less Greek'. I am a stranger to the shapes and texture of the commonest trees, herbs, flowers - not from the circumstance of my being town-born - for I should have brought the same inobservant spirit into the world with me, had I first seen it, 'on Devon's leafy shores' - and am no less at a loss among purely town objects, tool, engines, mechanic processes. Not that I affect ignorance - but my head has not many mansions, nor spacious, and I have been obliged to fill it with such cabinet curiosities as it can hold without aching. I sometimes wonder how I have passed my probation with so little discredit in the world, as I have done, upon so meagre a stock. But the fact is, a man may do very well with a very little knowledge, and scarce be found out, in mixed company; everybody is so much more ready to produce his own, than to call for a display of your acquisitions. But in a tete-a-tete there is no shuffling. The truth will out. There is nothing which I dread so much, as the being left alone for a quarter of an hour with a sensible, well-informed man that does not know me.

Pienemann (1999, 2003) developed processability theory on the basis of research with learners of different languages in a variety of settings, both instructional and informal. One important aspect of his theory is the integration of developmental sequences with first language influence. He argues that his theory explains why learners do not simply transfer features from their first language at early stages of acquisition. Instead, they have to develop a certain level of processing capacity in the second language before they can use their knowledge of the features that already exist in their first language.

Lydia White (1991) and others agree that acquisition of many grammatical features of the new language takes place naturally when learners are engaged in meaningful use of the language. However, they also suggest that, because the nature of UG is altered by the acquisition of the first language, second language learners may sometimes need explicit information about what is not grammatical in the second language. Otherwise, they may assume that some structures of the first language have equivalents in the second language when, in fact, they do not. In Chapter 2, we saw a good example of this in White’s study of the placement of English adverbs in sentences produced by French speakers.

The only place where feedback on error is typically present with high frequency is the language classroom. Even there, it is not always provided consistently. In Chapters 5 and 6, research on the role of feedback in the classroom will be reviewed. One condition that appears to be common to learners of all ages—though not in equal quality or quantity—is exposure to modified or adapted input. This adjusted speech style, called child-directed speech in first language acquisition, has sometimes been called foreigner talk or teacher talk depending on the contexts of second language acquisition. Some people who interact regularly with language learners seem to have an intuitive sense of what adjustments they need to make to help learners understand. Of course, not everyone knows what adjustments will be most helpful. We have all witnessed those painful conversations in which people seem to think that they can make learners understand better if they simply talk louder!

Just listen … and read’ is based on the hypothesis that language acquisition takes place when learners are exposed to comprehensible input through listening and/or reading. As noted in Chapter 4, the individual whose name is most closely associated with this proposal is Stephen Krashen (1985, 1989). This is a controversial proposal because it suggests that second language learners do not need to produce language in order to learn it, except perhaps to get other people to provide input by speaking to them. According to this view, it is enough to hear (or read) and understand the target language.

Marcella Hu and Paul Nation (2000) showed that, in order to understand a text without frequent stops to consult a dictionary, one needs to know more than 95 per cent of the words—a rare case for second language learners at most stages of acquisition. Although the two or three thousand most frequent words in English make up as much as 80–90 per cent of most non-technical texts, less frequent words are crucial to the meaning of many things we hear and read. For example, the meaning of a newspaper article about a court case may be lost without the knowledge of words such as ‘testimony’, ‘alleged’, or ‘accomplice’.

Mark Patkowski (1980) studied the relationship between age and the acquisition of features of a second language other than pronunciation. He hypothesized that, even if accent were ignored, only those who had begun learning their second language before the age of 15 could achieve full, native-like mastery of that language. Patkowski studied 67 highly educated immigrants to the United States. They had started to learn English at various ages, but all had lived in the United States for more than five years. He compared them to 15 native-born Americans with a similarly high level of education, whose variety of English could be considered the second language speakers’ target language. The main question in Patkowski’s research was: ‘Will there be a difference between learners who began to learn English before puberty and those who began learning English later?’ However, he also compared learners on the basis of other characteristics and experiences that some people have suggested might be as good as age in predicting or explaining a person’s success in mastering a second language. For example, he looked at the total amount of time a speaker had been in the United States as well as the amount of formal ESL instruction each speaker had had. A lengthy interview with each person was tape-recorded. Because Patkowski wanted to remove the possibility that the results would be affected by accent, he transcribed five-minute samples from the interviews and asked trained native-speaker judges to place each transcript on a scale from 0 (no knowledge of English) to 5 (a level of English expected from an educated native speaker). The findings were quite dramatic. The transcripts of all native speakers and 32 out of 33 second language speakers who had begun learning English before the age of 15 were rated 4+ or 5. The homogeneity of the pre-puberty learners suggests that, for this group, success in learning a second language was almost inevitable. In contrast, 27 of the 32 post-puberty learners were rated between 3 and 4, but a few learners were rated higher (4+ or 5) and one was rated at 2+. The performance of this group looked like the sort of range one would expect if one were measuring success in learning almost any kind of skill or knowledge: some people did extremely well; some did poorly; most were in the middle.

Research on comprehension-based approaches to second language acquisition shows that learners can make considerable progress if they have sustained exposure to language they understand. The evidence also suggests, however, that comprehension-based activities may best be seen as an excellent way to begin learning and as a supplement to other kinds of learning for more advanced learners. Comprehension of meaningful language is the foundation of language acquisition. Active listening and reading for meaning are valuable components of classroom teachers’ pedagogical practices. Nevertheless, considerable research and experience challenge the hypothesis that comprehensible input is enough. VanPatten’s research showed that forcing students to rely on specific linguistic features in order to interpret meaning increased the chances that they would be able to use these features in their own second language production. Another response to comprehension-based approaches is Merrill Swain’s (1985) comprehensible output hypothesis. She argues that it is when students have to produce language that they begin to see the limitations of their interlanguage (see Chapter 4). However, as we will see in the discussion of the ‘Let’s talk’ proposal, if learners are in situations where their teachers and classmates understand them without difficulty, they may need additional help in overcoming those limitations.

The move to introduce foreign languages earlier is partly propelled by the belief that there is a critical age for language acquisition – hypothesized to be around the age of puberty – beyond which learning second languages becomes increasingly hard. On the basis of your reading or experience, do you think the Critical Age Hypothesis holds water? 7.             Is English the victim of its own success, causing children to be pushed into learning it at younger and younger ages?

Why not? Because – as the psychologist above said – everything that you remember and forget depends on attention. The more dispersed the attention, the less likelihood of remembering, while the more heightened the attention, the better the remembering, and hence the better the learning. This is as true for language learning as for any other kind of learning. As psycholinguists Nick Ellis and Peter Robinson (2008: 3) put it: ‘What is attended is learned, and so attention controls the acquisition of language itself.’ Likewise, Dick Schmidt (2001: 16) argues that only through the exercise of attention is input converted to intake: ‘Unattended stimuli persist in immediate short-term memory for only a few seconds at best,

the Comprehension Hypothesis,12 elaborated by Stephen Krashen in the early 1980s. It holds that one factor above all is responsible for second language acquisition: comprehensible input in that language.

It is unnecessary, he added, to pressure students to produce speech or writing in the second language before they are ready, because “output” contributes nothing. It is the result of second language acquisition, not the cause. In fact, putting pressure on children to speak or write can be counterproductive, increasing stress and raising the affective filter.

educators of English learners should be well-versed in theories of second language acquisition and in methodologies such as sheltering and scaffolding. Their work should be informed by professional development and coaching from experienced colleagues on effective techniques in the classroom. But is there no room for diversity in teaching styles and techniques? Is there really just one way to shelter instruction?

Third, the Comprehension Hypothesis, on which Krashen’s concept of sheltering is based, holds that input is what matters in second language acquisition—not output. As noted above, forcing students to “produce” a second language can be counterproductive. Output per se does not contribute directly to language acquisition, and forcing speech before students have acquired enough language to express their meaning tends to create anxiety and embarrassment, thereby raising the “affective filter” that keeps input from getting through.

when one person gives

Skill-building theories hold that only younger learners, and in some cases, only children younger than seven, can learn a language incidentally, that is, without intending to do so and without awareness of doing so. When it comes to LT for older children and adults (usually envisaged as in the mid-teens and thereafter), therefore, they accord dominant status to explicit learning and explicit instruction.

The annual rate of vocabulary growth is high to early school age English children. From Anglin (1993, 62) data we may appraise that first to third grade English children acquire 3,000 words per year, and that fourth to fifth grade English children acquire 10,000 words per year. We may assess that the early school years mark a rapid development in English children’s vocabulary. There is word-formation knowledge which assists early school age English children in such rapid enlargement of their vocabulary (Fowler, et. al., 2003; Nagy & Anderson 1984; Nagy, 1984; White, et. al., 1989; Kuo & Anderson, 2006). Calculating the number of members for each word family present in the textbooks used in elementary schools, Nagy & Anderson (1984, 20) expose that there are 6.88 members for each word family. Reasonably, Nagy (1988, 46) concludes that “there is no doubt that skilled word learners use context and their knowledge of prefixes, roots, and suffixes to deal effectively with new words”. Certainly such high vocabulary growth is of great interest in L2 acquisition, though, it has been estimated that only the most advanced L2 learners acquire 3,000 words a year. The fourth chapter offers suggestion over the way advanced L2 learners’ acquisition of word-formation devices of their target language may be improved. Doing so, the chapter uses inferences drawn from both L1 and L2 acquisition.

Productivity: A morpheme (affix) is considered to be productive when it combines with different stems, hence, to be frequently used in the adults’ speech possessing a high degree of activation. Children have the competence to acquire and use the morphemes most frequently used in the adult’s speech. When they identify that the suffix –er has a high level of activation, hence, a high productivity degree, they acquire and use this suffix (1984, 548). We may also uphold that there is their high occurrence in children’s natural environment which increases children’s familiarity with such morphemes.

The principles through which Cross-linguistic Influence affects L2 acquisition of word-formation devices to pre intermediate L2 learners: Orthographic and Phonological Overlap, and Morphological Translation Equivalence. Orthographic and Phonological Overlap: Rather than affixes possessing Semantic Transparency, like agentive suffixes -er, acquired early by English children acquiring their L1, L2 learners acquire more easily those L2 affixes which are identical in their Orthographic and Phonological components with their counterparts in pupils’ L1. Morphological Translation Equivalence: Roots and affixes forming L2 complex words may share Translation Equivalence with their counterparts (i. e. roots and affixes) forming their homologous complex word in pupils’ L1. The root and the suffix of the English derived word readable share Translation Equivalence with the root and suffix forming the derived Dutch word leesbaar. Besides, the same word-formation rule is applied to both of these derived words (e. g. transitive verbs read, lees plus suffix –able/-baar resulting in adjectives readable leesbaar); which suggests that such pair derivatives of the two languages share both Morphological and Translation Equivalence. Studying the acquisition of English affixes at pre intermediate Spanish speaking English learning pupils, Balteiro, I. (2011, 31) brings to a close that, first, L2 “learners acquire and learn more easily (1) those lexical items whose prefixes are either identical or at least similar to those in the mother tongue”, and, second, assesses that “(2) the learners’ native language plays an important role in the study of L2 morphology, as it is often used as a starting point to form similar derived units in the L2” (2011, 32).

Lowie (1998, 108) upholds that: “a lower degree of simplicity in the L2 does not necessarily imply greater difficulty for the L2 learner: if a very similar affix type occurs in the L2 learner’s native language, no difficulty may be experienced in the acquisition and use of this type. In other words, phonological change is not necessarily a factor of difficulty for L2 learners” (Lowie, W. 1998, 108).

Knowledge of Lexical Semantic Relationship: represents children’s ability in recognizing that two words share a common word base.In other words, it symbolizes children’s ability in recognizing the semantic relationship that words belonging to a word family share (e. g. argue, argument). The result of our tests seem to argue that there is no difference in the Knowledge of Lexical Semantic Relationship both English and Albanian pupils possess

Morphemes’ order stipulated by Extended Level Ordering, as we shall also demonstrate in this book, corresponds with the order morphemes and word-formation rules are acquired by English children. Inflection morphemes are acquired first by English children, and even before word-formation morphemes. Root compounds are also the complex words acquired early by preschool age English children (Anglin, 1993; Berko, 1958). Level 2 affixes (e. g., Neutral suffixes) are also acquired by English children during their preschool age (Tyler & Nagy, 1989); though less than compound words. Morphemes and word-formation rules belonging in Level 4 (e. g., Non-neutral suffixes) are acquired last.

Morphemes’ order stipulated by Extended Level Ordering, as we shall also demonstrate in this book, corresponds with the order morphemes and word-formation rules are acquired by English children. Inflection morphemes are acquired first by English children, and even before word-formation morphemes. Root compounds are also the complex words acquired early by preschool ageEnglish children (Anglin, 1993; Berko, 1958). Level 2 affixes (e. g., Neutral suffixes) are also acquired by English children during their preschool age (Tyler & Nagy, 1989); though less than compound words. Morphemes and word-formation rules belonging in Level 4 (e. g., Non-neutral suffixes) are acquired last. Though, Extended Level Ordering is not applicable in other languages. Root compounds have the strongest boundary separating the morphemes even in other languages, but, what differs is the degree of productivity root compounds own in other languages. Compounding is more productive than derivation in English language. In other languages, like Polish and Albanian, there is derivation which is more productive than compounding. Such difference in the productivity transforms the order in which Polish and Albanian children acquire word-formation paterns (i. e., compounding or derivation) of their L1.

The natural order of acquiring affixes also differs in L2 acquisition. Mochizuki and Aizawa (2000) tried to establish affixes’ acquisition order to Japan speaking English learners. They uphold that the factors responsible for the order are: “loan words, instruction, frequency of affixes, frequency of words that contain a particular affix, and the polyfunctional nature of affixes” (2000, 1). Obviously, the effect that ‘loan words’ have on the L2 affixes’ acquisition order is inconsistent with what Extended Level Ordering Hypothesis argues. Danilovic et. al., (2013) tested the order established by Mochizuki and Aizawa (2000). Testing Serbian speaking English learners, the authors conclude that the “order differed for Japanese and Serbian learners” (Danilovic. J. et. al., 2013). Both authors acknowledge that there is the L1 influence which affects affixes’ acquisition order to both Serbian and Japanese students. Further, there is the difference between Serbia and Japanese languages which transforms the order in which Serbia and Japanese learners acquire affixes of the target language.

Hence, L2 learners easily detect the L2 stem when its counterpart is a stem in pupils L1, or, in other words, when the counterpart of the L2 derived word is a derived word in pupils’ L1 which L2 learners can decompose. We may also uphold that the transfer of decomposition capability of L1 derivatives to L2 derivatives is more evident when the pair derivatives of the two languages share Morphological Translation Equivalence (i. e., when the pair roots and affixes of the two languages share Translation Equivalence and the same rule for their combinations applies in both languages). On the other hand, L2 learners are presumed to be less likely to decompose the L2 derivative when its counterpart is not a derived word in pupils’ L1.

L2 learners do not naturally acquire L2 productivity. Perhaps - in addition to their incapability to unconsciously acquire their L2 linguistic rules - there is their arbitrary, or rather their nonnative-like acquisition of L2 productive morphemes and productive word-formation rules, which impede them from attaining an early native-like manifestation of their target language, even if they may possess a larger vocabulary compared to pre school age native children. In other words, there is native children’s’ sensitivity for their L1 productivity, and, L2 learners’ reliance on Orthographic & Phonological Overlap and Morphological Translation Equivalence, resulting in L2 learners’ divergence from the natural order of acquiring L2 productivity, which makes native children look native-like, and impedes intermediate L2 learners from attaining an early native-like manifestation of their target language.

A five years old child may be aware of only 2 members for each word family he knows; perhaps one is the root word (i. e., mono-morphemic words) and the other is the complex one. Accordingly, Anglin (1993, 69-72) sustains that root words constitute 31% of the first grade English children’s vocabulary, whereas compound and derived words together constitute 41% of the first grade English children’s vocabulary.

The Communicative Approaches (the focus on meaning approaches) uphold that adults acquire their L2 through “subconscious learning process that allow them to pick up language ‘naturally’, as in the first language acquisition’’ (Markee 1996, 25). According to this view, the mastery of grammar (i. e. word-formation devices) comes naturally, through extended exposure to the target language (L2), similar to the way children become aware of word-formation’s devices of their mother tongue (L1). In contrast, Ullman, M. T. (2001, 1) upholds that “linguistic forms whose grammatical computation depends upon procedural memory in L1 are posited to be largely dependent upon declarative/lexical memory in L2”. In short, L2 learners have a limited acquisition capacity of linguistic forms (word-formation rules) compared to native children (Clahsen 2006; Ullman, M. T. 2001). The implication here is that L2 learners acquire L2 complex words as a unit rather than analytically. Yet, there is Cross-linguistic influence which affects L2 learners’ linguistic development and performance. Though, Cross-linguistic influence is both positively and negatively. Pre intermediate L2 learners are assisted by positive Cross-linguistic influence in their acquisition of L2 word-formation devices. On the other hand, Cross-linguistic influence diverts L2 learners from the natural order of acquiring L2 word-formation devices; impeding them in attaining an early native-like manifestation of their target language.

In short we may uphold that there is a Dual Semantic Transparency in L2 acquisition. First, as in L1 acquisition, the Semantic Transparency of L2 affixes depends on the whether they are Neutral or Non-neutral suffixes. Second, there is Morphological Translation Equivalence that L2 complex words and affixes share with their counterparts in pupils’ L1 which further enhances the Semantic Transparency of L2 affixes in the eyes of L2 learners.

Affected by their L1 Productivity, preschool age English children show a preference for productive word-formation rules (e. g. noun plus noun compounds) of their L1 (Haman et al. 2010, 178). As preschool age English children enlarge their lexicon, they show growing sensitivity for productive word-formation patterns (i. e. compounding) of their L1 (Clark & Berman 1984, 584; Haman et al, 2010, 186). Berko (1958) and Anglin (1993) proved that preschool age English children acquire mostly complex words formed according to productive word-formation patterns (i. e., compound words) of their L1. Early school age English children continue acquiring mostly complex words formed according to less productive patterns of their L1 (i. e., derived words) during their early school years. Estimating daily vocabulary growth for each word type to first, third, and fifth grade English children, Anglin (1993, 71-72) maintains that in a day early school age English children acquire 9.67 derived words, 3.86 literal compounds, 3.00 root words (i. e., mono-morphemic words), 1.92 inflected words, and 1.57 idioms. Guided by the same sensitivity for productive word-formation patterns of their L1, preschool age Polish children (whose L1 favors derivation over compounding), show a preference for derivation (i. e. derived words) over compounding during their early acquisition of word-formation devices (Haman et al, 2010, 186). By the way of analogical reasoning we may assume that, different from early school age English children, early school age Polish children continue acquiring mostly complex words formed according to less productive patterns of their L1 (i. e., compound words) during their early school years. Even, Polish children are presumed to have acquired most of their L1 derivatives during their preschool age, and, by the fifth grade to have acquired most of their L1 derivatives.

Lardiere, D. (2006) conducted Tyler & Nagy’s (1989) test to Patty; a Chinese speaking who has obtained master degree in USA Universities and has reached near native-like competence in English. In her test Lardiere, D. (2006) analyzed Patty’s Knowledge of Syntactic Properties of English Suffixes, i. e., Patty’s ability to recognize the part of speech of the derivatives by their suffixes (e. g. aggressive and workable are adjectives). Comparing Patty’s results with those of Tyler & Nagy (1989), Lardiere, D. (2006) notes that Patty’s Knowledge of Syntactic Properties of English Suffixes (as demonstrated by Patty’s scores in the nonce-words test) is higher than that of eighth grade English children, while, on the other hand, her ability to choose the proper real-derived word which suits the given syntactic context (as demonstrated by Patty’s scores in the real-word items test), equalizes that of sixth grade English children. Apparently, there is Morphological Translation Equivalence that pair derivatives and suffixes of the two languages share with each other which has enhanced Patty’s Knowledge of Syntactic Properties of L2 suffixes, even though her ability in choosing the proper derivational form which suits the given syntactic context has remained equal to that of sixth grade native children. Hence, the variation between L1 and L2 acquisition of Syntactic Properties of Suffixes is caused by L1 influence.

Examining early acquisition of word-formation devices, we noticed that preschool age English children acquire mostly root words. Root words constitute 31% of the first grade English children’s vocabulary. Literal compounds constitute 25% of the first grade English children’s vocabulary, and derived words solely 16% (Anglin 1993, 69-72). Imitating L1 acquisition we may uphold that pre intermediate L2 learners first have to acquire mostly root words during their early stages of L2 acquisition. It is well recognized among the scholars that knowledge of the root word and of affix/es facilitates acquisition of the derivative’s meaning in L2 acquisition. Knowledge of the root and of the affix/es enhances the semantic transparency of the L2 complex word in the eyes of L2 learners: chances for such complex words to be acquired analytically by L2 learners are also increased. On the other hand, L2 complex words - whose roots and affixes L2 learners are not aware of - do not possess semantic transparency in the eyes of L2 learners. Even, L2 learners may be disposed to acquire such L2 complex words as a unit rather than analytically.

Yet, L2 acquisition of word-formation devices differs from L1 acquisition. As suggested by the ‘Dual Semantic Transparency’, the Semantic Transparency of L2 word-formation morphemes is further enhanced by Orthographic & Phonological Overlap and/or by Morphological Translation Equivalence they share with their counterparts in pupils’ L1. Therefore, L2 word-formation morphemes and complex words that have to be present in elementary books should be those which share Orthographic & Phonological Overlap and/or Morphological Translation Equivalence with their counterparts in pupils’ L1. In their article, Bauer & Nation (1993) should have considered the influence pupils’ L1 has on L2 acquisition of L2 affixes. Affixes’ order, suggested by Bauer & Nation (1993), has to be reordered according to the Orthographic & Phonological Overlap and Morphological Translation Equivalence L2 affixes share with their counterparts in pupils’ L1. When teaching vocabulary, teachers have to provide the counterparts that L2 complex words have in pupils’ L1. Presenting the counterparts that L2 complex words have in pupils’ L1 assists L2 learners in transferring the decomposition capability of L1 complex words to L2 complex words. Morphological Translation Equivalence that pair complex words share with each other assist L2 learners in transferring the information of the L1 complex word to its counterpart in pupils’ L2 (e. g., transitive verbs read, lees plus suffix –able/-baar resulting in adjectives readable leesbaar).

Presenting L2 complex and affixes which share Morphological translation Equivalence with their counterparts in pupils L1, further enhances the semantic transparency of L2 complex words and affixes as well as increases the chances for such words to be acquired analytically.

Formal Simplicity: This principle stands for complex words with simple combination of morphemes (car-smoke, wagon-puller) (Clark & Berman, 1984, 548). Derived words, in which affixation causes no shift in stress, are also acquired early by preschool age children (e. g. Neutral suffixed words).

Denying Cross-linguistic Influence, Communicative Approaches seem to surmise that, as in L1 acquisition, L2 word-formation morphemes possessing Semantic Transparency and Productivity will be acquired early by pre intermediate L2 learners, and even may be the sole morpheme pre intermediate L2 learners acquire; which, as we shall demonstrate, is not necessarily the case for pre intermediate L2 learners. A second assumption we deduce from Communicative Approaches is that, as in L1 acquisition, L2 learners will show a similar sensitivity for L2 productive word-formation rules and patterns (e. g. noun-noun compounds, compounding in general etc.) with that of English children acquiring their L1; which, as we shall argue below, is not in all occasions true for pre intermediate L2 learners.

The second assumption deduced by Communicative Approaches, that L2 learner will show a similar sensitivity for L2 Productive word-formation patterns (derivation or compounding) with that of native children acquiring their L1 does not hold true.

English children’s vocabulary increases rapidly during the early school years. Anglin (1993, 62) estimated that first grade English children know approximately 10,000 words, third grade pupils know 19,000 words, and fifth grade pupils know 39,000 words. The annual increase in vocabulary is estimated to be 3,000 words from the first to third grade and 10,000 words from the fourth to the fifth grade. Nagy & Anderson (1984, 20) uphold that there is “the ability to utilize morphological relatedness among words (which) puts a student at a distinct advantage in dealing with unfamiliar words”. In a later work, Nagy (1988, 46) acknowledges that: “there is no doubt that skilled word learners use context and their knowledge of prefixes, roots, and suffixes to deal effectively with new words”. In short, in addition to context, there is awareness of word-formation devices which accounts for such rapid increase in early school age English children’s vocabulary. Such high vocabulary growth would certainly be of great interest in L2 acquisition. Nakayama, N. (2008) tested the role that explicit teaching of affixes (prefixes) plays in vocabulary learning to pre- and upper-intermediate L2 learners. The participants received instructions over the contribution prefixes played in the meaning of the complex word during an academic year. L2 learners’ vocabulary was measured in the beginning and in the end of the academic year. Assisted by the instructions, L2 learners learned easier the new derived words, but, in the end of the academic year they had forgotten the derived words whose meaning they acquired through instructions over the contribution prefixes played in the meaning of the complex word (2008, 70). In the end, Nakayama, N. (2008, 68) concludes that systematic teaching of prefixes does lead to better retention of the derived word, but only with regard to short-term memory. On the other hand, it has been estimated that the only the most advanced L2 learners can acquire 3000 words a year (Bauer, L. & Nation, P. 1993); a figure comparable to that of early school age native children acquiring their L1. Hence, word-formation knowledge leads to high vocabulary growth to L2 learners, but solely to the most advanced L2 learners. We may uphold that word formation devices have to be acquired rather than learned through explixit instructions.

We argue that, in addition to affixes’ knowledge, knowledge of the root word is a perquisite in the acquisition of Knowledge of Lexical Semantic Relationship. Schmitt and Meara (1997, 28) also revealed that pre intermediate L2 learners possess higher word association capability for root words they were aware of. Elementary books should be rich in root words.

In brief, as in L1 acquisition, there are two factors which impede the analytical acquisition of complex words to L2 learners, and result in L2 learners’ acquisition of complex words as a unit rather than analytically (as the Lexme-Based Model suggests). The first factor is the overload of pre intermediate L2 learners’ textbooks with multi-morphemic words. Second, there is the insufficient presence of root words in pre intermediate L2 learners’ textbooks.

Heijden (1999, 138) maintains that bilingual children follow the same order as native children during their course of acquiring word-formation paterns (compounding or derivation) of their target languages. Hence, bilingual children acquiring English show a preference for compounding of English language, while, on the other hand, if their other language favors derivation over compounding (e. g., Polish language), they show a preference for derivation. On the other hand, adult L2 learners, regardless of their L1 and L2 Productivity, show a common preference for compound words of their target of language; preference which is due to the morphological clarity that compound words own over derived words (Prude, C. 1993, 71).

Instructions in the structure of L1 compound words which share Morphological Translation Equivalence with their counterparts in the target language would assist pre intermediate L2 learners in transferring knowledge of L1 compound types to comparable types in the target language (Zhang. et. al., 2010). Similar instructions in L1 derivational morphology would also give similar results, although derivational morphology is more complex and more difficult to be transferred. Teachers should also present the counterparts L2 affixes have in pupils’ L1 (e. g., suffix –able has suffixes baar, -lijk as its counterparts in Deutch language). Presenting the counterpart L2 affixes have in pupils’ L1 makes L2 affixes more detectable in the eyes of L2 learners and assists L2 learners in acquiring L2 affixes. Most importantly, providing the counterpart L2 suffixes have in pupils’ L1 assists L2 learners in transferring Knowledge of Syntactic Properties of their L1 Suffixes to their counterparts in the target language. In the third chapter we argued that L2 learners own high Knowledge of Syntactic Properties for L2 Suffixes, and, such high Knowledge of Syntactic Properties of L2 Suffixes has been enhanced by Morphological Translation Equivalence L2 suffixes share with their counterparts in pupils’ L1.

Knowing root words is a perquisite for L2 learners in recognizing the semantic relationship that words belonging to a word family share with each other. It also assists them in detecting L2 affixes and in acquiring analytically L2 complex words. Presenting a multi-morphemic word to pre-intermediate L2 learners whose root they are not aware of – as pre-intermediate textbooks do - is pointless.

Semantic Transparency of L2 word-formation morphemes is enhanced by L2 itself (i. e., by Semantic Transparency, Formal Simplicity and Productivity degree they own in pupils’ L2), and, second, by Orthographic & Phonological Overlap and/or by the degree of Morphological Translation Equivalence they share with their counterparts in pupils’ L1.

Semantic Transparency: Children acquire early complex words which are based on roots they already know (sky-car, baby-bottle, to flag, to dust, brusher, hider). English-speaking children acquire early noun plus noun compounds (toothpaste, football), and compounds having head noun as –man (mailman, milkman, corresponding with batman, spiderman).

As a result, different from preschool age English children, who are assumed to acquire solely Neutral suffixes during their early acquisition of word-formation devices (Tyler & Nagy 1989), pre intermediate L2 learners, whose Semantic Transparency and Formal Simplicity is additionally enhanced by Orthographic & Phonological Overlap and/or Morphological Translation Equivalence that L2 derivatives and suffixes share with their counterparts in pupils’ L1, acquire both Neutral and Non-neutral suffixes.

Another aspect noticed in L1 acquisition is the low acquisition of multi- morphemic words (i. e., complex words composed of three or more morphemes) by preschool age English children. Preschool age English children acquire solely 0.5 multi-morphemic words per day and multi-morphemic words constitute 8% of the vocabulary first grade English children own (Anglin, 1993, 71-79). First to third grade English children acquire 2 multi-morphemic words per day. Multi-morphemic words constitute 12 % of the third grade English children’s vocabulary. Fourth to fifth grade English children acquire 7.1 multi-morphemic words per day and multi-morphemic words constitute 19% of the fifth grade English children’s vocabulary (1993, 71-79). The low acquisition rate of multi-morphemic words by preschool age English children can be explained in terms of lack of parsability of multi-morphemic words. In his ‘Complexity-Based Ordering’ Model, Hay (2000, 2002) upholds that Level 1 suffixes (usually being Non-neutral suffixes), which occur inside other suffixes, are not parsed out during the processing of a multi-suffixed word by native speakers. Level 2 suffixes (usually being Neutral suffixes), which occur outside another suffix, are parsed out during the processing of multi-suffixes words. Level 1 suffixes: -al, -an, -ant, -ance, -ary, -ate, -ic, -ify, -ion, -ity, -ive, -ory, -ous, -y, -ity, -ation. Level 1 prefixes: sub-, de-, in-. Level 2 suffixes: -able, -age, -en, -er, -ful, -hood, -ish, -ism, -ist, -ize, -ly, -ment, -ness. (Fab, 1988, 531). Level 2 prefixes: re-, un-, non-. Obviously, such lack of parsability obscures the semantic transparency of multi-morphemic words and impedes the analytical acquisition of multi-morphemic words by preschool age English children. A strenuous effort to acquire multi-morphemic words would result in acquisition of such words as a unit (as the Lexeme-Based Model suggests, see Aronoff, 1994), rather than analytically (as argued by Morpheme-Based Model). Such lack of parsability also obscures the semantic transparency of multi-morphemic words and impedes the analytical acquisition of multi-morphemic words by pre intermediate L2 learners. The degree of Morphological Translation Equivalence that L2 multi-morphemic words share with their counterparts in pupils’ L1 is also lower compared to bi-morphemic words. Consequently, multi-morphemic words will be acquired as a unit rather than analytically by pre intermediate L2 learners. Elementary books designed for pre intermediate L2 learners - in addition to the insertion of root words - should also comprise less multi-morphemic words; perhaps solely or less than 8% of their vocabulary.

Preschool age children successfully acquire their L2 productivity. Perhaps - in addition to their capability to unconsciously acquire their L1 linguistic rules - there is their effective acquisition of productive morphemes and productive word-formation rules and patterns of their L1 (i. e. morphemes and complex words most frequently used in everyday life) which grants them an early native-like look, even if they possess a small vocabulary (10,000 words) compared to adults.

L2 learners do not naturally acquire L2 productivity. Perhaps - in addition to their incapability to unconsciously acquire their L2 linguistic rules - there is their arbitrary, or rather their nonnative-like acquisition of L2 productive morphemes and productive word-formation rules, which impede them from attaining an early native-like manifestation of their target language, even if they may possess a larger vocabulary compared to pre school age native children.

Pair prefixed words of the two languages share Morphological Translation Equivalence as well (e. g. unemployed, disoccupato). Likewise, roots forming pair compounds of the two languages may share Translation Equivalence. Besides, the same rule for the combination of roots may apply in the two languages (e. g. welcome, benvenuto). Such pair compounds of the two languages share Morphological Translation Equivalence as well.

Alike preschool age Polish children, preschool age Albanian children are presumed to acquire mostly complex words formed according to productive word-formation rules and patterns (i. e., derived words) of their L1 during their preschool age. When enter school, their lexicon is presumed to be enriched mostly by complex words formed according to less productive word-formation rules and patterns (i. e., compound words) of their L1. Even, they are presumed to have acquired most of their L1 derivatives by the fifth grade.

Do Albanian pupils outperform their English counterparts as regards the knowledge of their L1 derivational morphology? Early school age Albanian, French and English children demonstrate equal Knowledge of Lexical Semantic Relationship.

Albanian and French pupils’ high awareness of their L1 derivatives grants them a high ‘memory of language’. Consequently, compared to their English counterparts, they are more aware of the ‘Constraints’ their L1 imposes over derivational rules

Comparing Patty’s results with those of Tyler & Nagy (1989), Lardiere, D. (2006) notes that Patty’s Knowledge of Syntactic Properties of English Suffixes (as demonstrated by Patty’s scores in the nonce-words test) is higher than that of eighth grade English children, while, on the other hand, her ability to choose the proper real-derived word which suits the given syntactic context (as demonstrated by Patty’s scores in the real-word items test), equalizes that of sixth grade English children. Such results divulge hat there is a disparity between L1 and L2 acquisition of Syntactic Properties of Suffixes.

In other words, there is native children’s’ sensitivity for their L1 productivity, and, L2 learners’ reliance on Orthographic & Phonological Overlap and Morphological Translation Equivalence, resulting in L2 learners’ divergence from the natural order of acquiring L2 productivity, which makes native children look native-like, and impedes intermediate L2 learners from attaining an early native-like manifestation of their target language.

Examining early acquisition of word-formation devices, we noticed that preschool age English children acquire mostly root words. Root words constitute 31% of the first grade English children’s vocabulary. Literal compounds constitute 25% of the first grade English children’s vocabulary, and derived words solely 16% (Anglin 1993, 69-72). Imitating L1 acquisition we may uphold that pre intermediate L2 learners first have to acquire mostly root words during their early stages of L2 acquisition. It is well recognized among the scholars that knowledge of the root word and of affix/es facilitates acquisition of the derivative’s meaning in L2 acquisition.

When teaching vocabulary, teachers have to provide the counterparts that L2 complex words have in pupils’ L1. Presenting the counterparts that L2 complex words have in pupils’ L1 assists L2 learners in transferring the decomposition capability of L1 complex words to L2 complex words. Morphological Translation Equivalence that pair complex words share with each other assist L2 learners in transferring the information of the L1 complex word to its counterpart in pupils’ L2 (e. g., transitive verbs read, lees plus suffix –able/-baar resulting in adjectives readable leesbaar).

The widely documented failure of late starters to achieve native-like proficiency, even when motivation, cognitive abilities, and opportunities are optimal and plentiful, all agree, is one of the most salient facts about SLA. It is a weighty empirical problem, in Laudan's sense, crying out for a solution.

In the absence of either a widely accepted theory of language learning or a solid empirical base for classroom practice, teachers and learners have always been, and will always be, vulnerable to drastic pendulum swings of fashion, the coming and going of various unconventional and unlamented "Wonder Methods" being an obvious recent example. The sad truth is that after at least 2,000 years, most language teaching takes place on a wing and a prayer - sometimes successfully, but often a relative failure.

Whether or not these ideas alone would solve any of the problems discussed, I look forward to the day when SLA is more widely recognized as the serious and socially responsive discipline I believe it can be. Chapters like this one (unpleasant for writer and assuredly some readers alike) would no longer be needed. One could instead concentrate on the genuine controversies and excitement in SLA and L3A: the roles of nature and nurture; special and general nativism; child-adult differences and the possibility of maturational constraints; cross-linguistic influence; acquisition and socialization; cognitive and social factors; resilience; stabilization; fossilization, and other putative mechanisms and processes in interlanguage change; the feasibility of pedagogical intervention; and, most of all, the development of viable theories.