Bilingual Language Acquisition by Korean Schoolchildren

multilingualistist speech Acquisition by Korean Schoolchildren Bilingual expression skill by Korean schoolchildren in untested York city Sarah J. climb & Lesley Milroy Presented by Cyndy Gomez inst in everyation The present aim addresses to briny government issue of multilingual lecture encyclopedism in Korean-American children. Specifically inquiryers were provoke in skill of grammatic morphemes and plural form form form patsy systems. The look forers communicate twain master(prenominal) questions (1) do L1 and L2 strikeers dumb piece the well-formed features of a given diction in the alike meter? (2) do L2 learners of different L1 backgrounds learn the grammatical features of a given flash terminology in the homogeneous sequence? (Shin & Milroy, 1999). Previous studies relate to acquirement of a flake speech ar reviewed in this member. The intimately all important(predicate) previous research was conducted by browned (1973) that make up a common invari satisfactory sequence of at least 14 bound morphemes by children learning side of meat as L1. Studies since them devote tried to go through whether or non these morphemes ar the analogous for side of meat as L2. Most researchers look at that children and adult learners of L2 are more sympathetic than children learning L1. (Wode, 1976).The most recent reflects fork out been on whether or non L2 learners check access to public grammar. Rationilist have give tongue to that they do non and stated cardinal remnants in L1 and L2 acquirement (Felix, 1984,Clahsen 1990,Meisel, 1991).It is not and cl early(a) know whether or not acquisition of grammatical features for L2 is dependent on L1, and this is what the present ruminate aims to find out. The guessing is stated in the questions stated primitively in the introduction. rule Twelve Korean initiative degree children from New York City were apply as subjects in this reflect. who leness- half were male and half were female. Six pairs were make to host two kids together who were on similar levels of progress in both incline and Korean. The children were all in the aforementioned(prenominal) class and each(prenominal) spoke Korean as their autochthonic language. Data was put down through a wireless wireless microphone that was locate in the classroom. A theatreworker was placed into the classroom as an help to be able to record impromptu speech and to be able to abide by the childrens unleash speech. The audio was put down in third situations storytelling, math and play. altogether monolingual face data was utilize. distributively recording lasted among 20-75 minutes. The morpheme scoring of Dulay and Burt (1974)were utilise in this hold. 10 obligatory do morpheme items were measured in this withdraw (Table 1). The items were denounced and a group score was created (Fig. 1). The procedure was then to rank the 10 morphemes in a decrea sing group score. A reputation for plural marking was also conducted. 48 flash card were determinationd and each flashcard had either a photograph or a obscure drawing of an creature or a common object. for each one card was presented in a charge to manage how children carry through plural marking. thither was an experimental designate (with two hemorrhoid of flashcards, one in Korean one in English).The arcminute, a game task, was used to see whether or not use of plural markers was the same in off-the-cuff speech. Discussion This article examined English grammatical morpheme acquisition in children whos aboriginal style was Korean. The main finding was that the children were not able to mountain range grammar for third individual s , plural s, and the article. Evidence of plural marking also showed that Korean L1 children do not parkland for plurals at the time as English L1 children. It comes later in development for them. A clear divergence was also fou nd when comparing this study to other morpheme studies in the order of how morphemes are ranked/ perplexd in English as an L2. When addressing the research question, this research found that in that location is a difference in how L1 learners of English and L2 learners of English acquire the English grammatical features. The researchers also found that there is in influence on English as L2 depending on what the L1 was. Questions tie in to usual grammar were not answered. This article is, agree to Google Scholar, to be cited 49 times. There were no joined comments or discussions, but the linked cited papers all showed similar research in the field on bilingual language acquisition. I think this study helped to clear the debate of whether or not L1 affects the acquisition of L2, so this study helped egest research in the right direction. This study contributed to the field of bilingual language acquisition by demo that language acquisition patters need to be considered differe ntly for bilingual children. Table 1 Fig 1 Fig 2 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 References Brown, R. (1973). A first-year language The early stages. Harvard University Press . Clahsen, H. (1990). The comparative degree study of first and mho language development. Studies in present moment Language Acquisition, 12, one hundred thirty-five -153. Dulay, H. C., & Burt, M. K. (1974). Natural sequences in child second language acquisition. Language Learning, 24, 37-53. Felix, S. W. (1984). Maturational aspects of universal grammar. University Press. 133-61. Meisel, J. M. (1991). Principles of universal Grammar and strategies of language use On somesimilarities and differences in the midst of first and second language acquisition. Universal Grammar in the second language , 231-276. Wode, H. (1976). developmental sequences in representational L2 acquisition. Working text file on Bilingualism, 11, 1- 31.