SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Dil ve Dilbilimi Çalışmaları Dergisi / 2018 / Cilt: 14 Sayı: 4

Understanding the linguistic variation in English as a lingua franca among Arab siblings

Fawzi Al Ghazali
Pages
301–315
Publication Date
2018-12-15
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Results showed that the existence of the Language Acquisition Device (LAD) is not evidence that siblings progress in language acquisition at the same rate.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Please fill up the following information accurately. (Please use Times New Roman, 12 pt.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The siblings participated in this study (N=15) are university undergraduates, who are educated in the UAE schools.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Results showed that the existence of the Language Acquisition Device (LAD) is not evidence that siblings progress in language acquisition at the same rate.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Linguistic Variation · Language Acquisition Device · Lingua Franca

Abstract

Please fill up the following information accurately. (Please use Times New Roman, 12 pt. Understanding the linguistic variation in English as a lingua franca among Arab siblings This study investigated the various linguistic, psychological, and sociocultural variables that explain the variation in English as a Lingua Franca among Arab siblings. The variables are not predetermined but extracted from the participants’ contributions and data in a grounded theory research. The siblings participated in this study (N=15) are university undergraduates, who are educated in the UAE schools. Results showed that the existence of the Language Acquisition Device (LAD) is not evidence that siblings progress in language acquisition at the same rate. The discourse analysis showed noticeable variation between siblings in the same and/or other groups. Sibling pairs proved to have variation in their linguistic levels exhibiting dissimilar levels of accuracy, fluency, L1 interference, spontaneity, and automaticity of speech. Some of these siblings have equal opportunities for improving their English; however, the analysis showed other affective variables influencing the development of language skills among them. The thematic analysis signalled three variables namely exposure to quality input and interaction opportunities, provision of quality education, and autonomy and independent activities. Eight of the fifteen participants attributed their deficiency in English to the inefficiency of the education system that did not facilitate sufficient exposure to linguistic input. Autonomy and independence proved to be effectual in creating the variation among siblings as well. This study sheds light on the significance of contextual factors in influencing proficiency levels among EFL learners in the UAE. The implications and recommendations of research findings are discussed. Information about Author(s)* Author 1 Author (Last name, First name) Al Ghazali, Fawzi Affiliated institution (University) ALHOSN University Country United Arab Emirates Email address [email protected] Department & Rank Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences Corresponding author (Yes/No) Write only one corresponding author. Yes Author 2 Author (Last name, First name) Affiliated institution (University) Country Email address Department & Rank Corresponding author (Yes/No) Author 3 Author (Last name, First name) Affiliated institution (University) Country Email address Department & Rank Corresponding author (Yes/No) Author 4 Author (Last name, First name) Affiliated institution (University) Country Email address Department & Rank Corresponding author (Yes/No)

🔖

Cite This Article

Ghazali, F. A. (2018). Understanding the linguistic variation in English as a lingua franca among Arab siblings. Dil ve Dilbilimi Çalışmaları Dergisi, Cilt: 14 Sayı: 4, 301–315. https://ajindex.com/articles/1090627

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (60)

  1. Abrams, M. and Harpham, G. (2005). A Glossary of Literary Terms. Boston, MA: Thomson, Wadsworth.
  2. Al Ghazali, F. (2006). First Language Acquisition Vs. Second Language Learning: What Is the Difference?
  3. Birmingham: The University of Birmingham.
  4. Allwright, R. (1987) ‘Concluding comments on second language acquisition in context’: in Ellis, R. (ed.) Second
  5. Language Acquisition in context. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, Prentice Hall. (P. 209-212).
  6. Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3:
  7. Charmaz, C. (2006). Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis. London:
  8. Sage.
  9. Chomsky, N. (1981) Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
  10. Crooks D. L. (2001). The importance of symbolic interaction in grounded theory research on women’s health.
  11. Health Care for Women International, 22, 11-27.
  12. Dale, P., Harlaar, N., Haworth, C., and Plomin, R. (2010). Two by Two: A Twin Study of Second-Language
  13. Acquisition. Psychological Science, 21/5, 635-640.
  14. Dey, I. (1999). Grounding grounded theory: Guidelines for qualitative inquiry. San Diego: Academic Press.
  15. Donato, R. and Mccormick, D. (194). A sociocultural perspective on language learning strategies: The role of
  16. Mediation. The Modern Language Journal. 78/iv, 453-464.
  17. Dörnyei, Z. (2001). Teaching and Researching Motivation. Harlow: Longman.
  18. Ehrman, M. E. (1996) Understanding Second Language Learning Difficulties. California: SAGE Publications.
  19. Ellis, R. (1997) Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: OUP.
  20. Gardner, R. C., Tremblay, P. F., and Masgoret, A.-M. (1997). Towards a full model of second language learning:
  21. an empirical investigation. Modern Language Journal. 81, 344-62.
  22. Gass, S. (2002). An interactionist perspective on second language acquisition. In R. Kaplan (Ed.), The Oxford
  23. handbook of Applied Linguistics, (pp. 170-181). Oxford: OUP.
  24. Glaser, B. G. and Strauss, A. L. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research.
  25. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
  26. Grigorenko, E. L. (2002). Language-based learning disabilities. In P. Robinson (ed.), Individual Differences and
  27. Instructed Language Learning. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 95-113.
  28. Halliday, M. A. K. (1986) Learning how to mean: Explorations in the development of language. London,
  29. Edward Arnold.
  30. Ingram, D. (1989) First Language Acquisition: Method, Description and Explanation. Cambridge: CUP.
  31. Jones, M. and Alony, I. (2011). Guiding the use of grounded theory in doctoral studies: An example from the
  32. Australian film industry. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, V. (6), 95-114.
  33. Krashen, S. D. (1985) The Input Hypothesis. London, Longman.
  34. Lemetyinen, H. (2012). Language Acquisition. Retrieved on March 18th, 2017 from
  35. www.simplypsychology.org/language.html
  36. Lightbown, P. M. and Spada, N. (2001) ‘Factors affecting second language learning’: In Candlin, C. N. and
  37. Mercer, N. (eds.) English language teaching in its social context. London, Routledge.
  38. Miyake, A. and Friedman, D. (1998). Individual differences in second language proficiency: working memory as
  39. language aptitude. In A. Healy and L. Bourne (eds), Foreign Language Learning: Psycholinguistic Studies on Training and Retention. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  40. Oxford, R. L. (1999) ‘Anxiety and the language learner: new insights’: In Arnold, J. (ed.), Affect in Language
  41. Learning. Cambridge, CUP. (P. 58-67).
  42. Ozfidan, B., Machtmes, K., and Demir, H. (2014). Socio-cultural factors in second language learning: A case
  43. study of adventurous adult language learners. European Journal of Educational Research. 3/4, 185-191.
  44. Paradis, J. (2011). Individual differences in child English second language acquisition. Linguistic Approaches to
  45. Bilingualism (1/3), 213-237.
  46. Rathold, N. (2012). Social factors in second language acquisition. Retrieved on 19/03/2017 From
  47. https://omjaeducation.wordpress.com/2012/02/20/social-factors-in-second-language-acquisition/
  48. Rowley, J. (2002). Using case studies in research. Management Research News. V/25, 16-27
  49. Sawyer, M. and Ranta, L. (2001). Aptitude, individual differences, and instructional design. In P. Robinson (ed.),
  50. Cognition and Second Language Acquisition. New York: CUP, 319-53.
  51. Skehan, P. (1991). Individual differences in second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition., 275-98.
  52. Skinner, B.F. (1957). Verbal Behaviour. Acton, MA: Copley Publishing Group.
  53. Stevens, G. and Ishizawa, H. (2007). Variation among Siblings in the Use of a Non-English Language. Journal
  54. of Family Issues. 28/8, 1008-1025.
  55. Swain, M. (1985). Communicative Competence: Some Roles of Comprehensible Input and Comprehensible
  56. Output in its Development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in Second Language Acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House
  57. Van Dijk, A. (2006). Ideology and discourse analysis. Journal of Political Ideologies, 11/2, 115-140.
  58. Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Massachusetts:
  59. Harvard University Press.
  60. Yin, R. K. (1994). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.