Background of the Research

Second language is an emerging stream of research which indicates the existence of a link between meta-linguistic capabilities and recognition of word. Researchers also believed that learners in the beginning of learning a second language has no or moderate connection between the texts understanding and same skills (Bialystok & Ryan, 1985). The studies also signify the existence of a relationship between the capacity in L1 and L2; and the possibility of a transfer in early learning of L1 to L2 (Bialystok, 1988). Furthermore, a study by Cisero and Royer (1995) in which they survey Hispanic-English bilingual children and also conducted a field tests regarding both languages (L1: Spanish L2: English) showed that some components of consciousness, like phonological are highly correlated than others between the two languages and that the strength of the correlations varies with time. In other words, it is difficult to specify at what age and what level of expertise in second language these meta-linguistic skills are likely to occur. Finally, two studies in multiethnic communities that emphasize training programs in the second language used to develop these skills and promote reading success in writing (Bialystok, 1982).

The term “meta-linguistic knowledge” is defined as the overt and tangible knowledge of a language. The importance of this term is sometimes considered as less significant in the learning of second language. According to Krashen (1982, 1994), this understanding has no impact on the primary component of L2 development. This acquisition is crucial in a sense that it works without the knowledge of the learner. As a matter of fact, the secondary function of the proponent is served by this meta-linguistic knowledge, but also it depends upon the user. For example, this system is activated for a user who is keen on learning and using the language in a proficient manner.

This user must be knowledgeable about the norms of L2 and its application. The proposed view came to be known as the ‘no interface’ position. This perception has also been a topic of debate among many academic societies and scholars. Some are in favour of strong interface positions, some in weak and some have been supportive of both the positions. Researchers in favour of the strong position argue that explicit meta-linguistic knowledge has the capability to be automated. This is possible to the extent that the learners do not remember the initiating lessons and knowledge (DeKeyser, 2003). On the other hand, opponents of this position debate that this knowledge and understanding can assist the possession of implied knowledge by making the learner concentrate on the linguistic aspects in the input (Ellis, 1994). These differences in opinion are evident of the fact that high room exists for research in this field. It is suggested by many academicians that the role and importance of meta-linguistic knowledge in the process of learning a second language must be researched on an extensive basis.

Introduction

The aim of this study is to determine how does L1 (Russian) influence in learning of L2 (English). This study is the replication of the study of Ahlem Ammar and etc. This target of that study was Russian students learning English as a secondary language. This paper reports an investigation into the nature and extent of learning English as a second language (ESL). Earlier evidence on the research reveals that the efficacy of learning English as a second language (L2) depends largely on learning and expertise of first language.

In the study under review, we will scale this dependence in the context of Russian speaking learners of English. Earlier research on the subject has primarily studied L1 and L2 processing of adult or adolescent learners, mainly because researching young learners for the subject is difficult given the complex meta-linguistic abilities. Nevertheless, some research shows that children may also be able to reflect their L1 learning in their performance for L2 learning.

Most of the findings related to young children L2 learning experiences are noted in European contexts (Bengtsson, 1980; Hawkins, 1984) targeting children with children under Russian immersion programmes like (Harley, 1998) and English in Canadian ESL programs (White & Ranta, 2002). There is also empirical evidence noting the meta-linguistic developments of young children, and building strong linguistic expressions at an early age (Bialystok, 1988; Gaux & Gombert, 1999; Gleitman, Gleitman, & Shipley, 1972).

In this study, I examined Russian (L1) speakers on production of grammatically well-formed past perfect English (L2) sentences. I also covered the extent to which they were aware of the reasons behind these aspects of their language performance. The language feature investigated is the past sentence. In the sections that follow I will discuss some of the theoretical and empirical work related to the role of the L1 in L2 learning and learners’ awareness of it. Afterwards, I will describe the differences between past perfect formation in Russian and English and report on previous research carried out with francophone learners acquiring questions in English. This will be followed by the methodology used in the present study and present the results and conclusions.

Problem Statement

The grammatical domain this study has chosen to examine, in a first step, is to determine the difficulties faced by Russian students in forming Past Perfect tenses in English. On the one hand, this alternation continues to cause problems even at an advanced level especially for learners of Russians, whose second language is not mixing up with their first or native language (Coppieters, 1987). For them, it is to restructure the field of the past and pay attention to factors that are undoubtedly present in the extra-linguistic reality both for themselves and the Russian, but that does not occur morphologically in their mother tongue (Hulstijn & Hultstijn, 1984).

On the other hand, the alternation between simple past and imperfect grammar is a phenomenon, which cannot be described by a limited number of clear and simple rules. The concepts, appearance, inherent semantics of words and narrative structure (background and foreground) are usually mentioned in the explanations provided in scientific orientation of grammars.

Purpose

The purpose of this study is to analyse the production of the learner and their evaluation of the grammatical aspect of L2 phrases. I have also studied the extent to which participants had knowledge of the reasons accountable for these components of their language performance. The feature of language analysed in this study comprises past perfect tense formation.

Aim of the Study

To find out how L1 knowledge (meta-linguistic knowledge) will affect in forming Past Perfect tenses in English.

Research Question

The following research question will be investigated in this study:

1. What evidence is there of Russian L1 influence on students’ ability to judge and to use tenses in L2 English?

2. What is the relationship between learners’ awareness of L1–L2 differences and their success in judging or constructing L2 English tenses?

3. What is the correlation between meta-linguistics and grammar performance?

4. To what extent the rules of grammar teaching is a effective tools that help learners to distinguish the fields use the simple past and imperfect in Russian?

5. How learners represent the rules that govern and use the simple past perfect tenses in Russian?

Rationale

The development of meta-linguistic knowledge among learners of English language is important. In this connection, the researcher in this paper has highlighted the preliminary results of a research project that aims to explore how L1 knowledge (meta-linguistic knowledge) affects in forming Past Perfect tenses in English. Meta-linguistic knowledge of learners is likely to evolve under the influence of various factors in education: like the texts of books, the explanations given in class and the learners' exposure to the language itself. Although this first of all is an acquisition of knowledge about the explicit mode, besides, there are indications that acquisition is simultaneously at the default mode (White, 1991).

The establishment of representations in learners is assumed in both cases as a phase interpretation and reconstruction of knowledge. This makes the difference of existence between individual representations of different learners and representations of learners in groups and those of teachers and grammarians plausible (White, 1998). These differences may be hidden by the use of common, relatively vague and unscientific terminologies indicating the need for continued negotiation, which deepened the meaning of basic concepts. Why should we study the meta-linguistic knowledge of learners? The answer is simple, because it is a part of research on second language acquisition and there is also great foreign interest in the knowledge of explicit meta-linguistic learners, which is especially concerned with the possible relationship between these knowledge and development of the interlanguage of the learner (Krashen, 1982).

Date: 2016-01-05; view: 743