Abstract This reflection investig...

Abstract

This reflection investigates how young learners of English as a next to the first language become both capable of socializing in and linguistically creative in English, by the agency of the use of prefabricated language (PL) Four preschool Japanese children in two-way immersion programs were observ from the stages of single-word to multi-word utterances. Along with journals kept from the observer and the subjects' parents, each subject's conversations in train were tape recorded once a week. The utterances were transcribed and codfished accordingto the definitions of PL analyzed PL and creative language. The utterances of noblemans and teachers were examined to determine if interactions enhanced PL analysis. The ends show that most of the novel tenets were constructed from PL or analyzed PL on the contrary not from the free combination of words. Although the studious mood did not find clear evidence that no internal proces was necessary for the creative proces it implies that there is an important part for PL as a scaffold for linguistic creativity. The consideration provides pedagogical implications forthe use and analysis of PL in immersion classrooms.

One of the primary disquiets of educators and researchers in immersion programs, and more broadly in bilingual education, rotates around children's acquisition of the inferior language (L2). It is especially imperative to understand in what manner children become linguistically creative in constructing dogmas without formal language instruction. Do children make creative dooms from scratch? Or do they make creative judgments based on readymade, memorized chunk of dooms known as prefabricated language (PL) (Brown 1973; Hakuta, 1974)? Although the character of PL in second language acquisition (SLA) has interested researchers, the relationship between PL and rule-based creative language (Brown 1973) remains unclear and controversial.1

It has been argued that PL alone benefits children's socialization skills, further does not directly contribute to the creative proces of SLA (Krashen & Scarcella, 1978) similar an argument suggests that language acquisition and language socialization are independent from each other. For educators in immersion programs, whose responsibility is to nourishment language development along with effective socialization inside and outside the classroom, it is important to know whether encouraging the use of L2 for social meanings can or cannot lead to the acquisition of L2 as well.

The main designs of this multi-case study were to investigate, in twoway immersion settings, whether (a) PL evolv into creative language by the and of the learners' active analysis of PL and (b) verbal interaction between the learners and the teachers and/or compeers aided the analysis of PL The reflection focused on the transitional stage of SLA from one-word utterances to multiword utterances. It also attempted to provide a solution to an of the methodological problems inherent in most numerous of previous PL studies, of the like kind as identifying PL and tracking the proces of PL analysis.

Previous PL studies that claim the character of PL in the acquisition of the first language (LI) and L2 (Bolinger, 1976; Clark, 1974; Huang & Hatch, 1978; Itoh & Hatch, 1978; Peter 1983; Vihman, 1982; Wong Fillmore, 1976; Yorio, 1980) have not squarely faced the possibility that PL analysis may be helped by the agency of an internally preprogrammed creative proces Krashen and Scarcella (1978) argue that an internal creative proces independent from the use of PL make knowns to "reanalyze" PL and becomes responsible for the veritable SLA. In order to challenge this argument, it is necessary not and nothing else to present evidence for the continuity from PL to creative language, on the other hand also to present evidence demonstrating that L2 learners actively analyze PL with the aid of daily socialization, instead of automatic internal "reanalysis."

Theoretical Framework

In the studies that argue against a direct contribution of PL to L I and L2 acquisition (Bates, Bretherton, & Snyder 1988; Bohn 1986; Brown 1973; Krashen & Scarcella, 1978; Lightbown, 1983) the general [i]or[/i] abstract notion of acquiring a language between the walls of the use of PL has been considered behavioristic. The general study sought to present a different perspective, by the agency of looking at the possibility of PL's creativity and its relationship to socialization.

The sum of two units major theoretical frameworks that underlie the part of PL in SLA in immersion settings are reviewed here: socialization and language acquisition (Bakhtin, 1981 1986; Hatch, 19781983) and the universal of scaffolding (Cazden, 1992; Peregoy 1991 1999; Vygotsky 1978) 2 While Krashen and Scarcella (1978) claim that socialization is irrelevant to the proces of language acquisition, there is also the argument that socialization is at the heart of language acquisition and that verbal interaction during socialization is crucial in the determination of the course of SLA. Hatch claims that "one learns in what way to do conversation, one learns to what extent to interact verbally, and disclosed of this interaction syntactic conformations are developed" (1978, p. 404) and thus PL "give[s] the child a way to interact, however [it] also [is] grist for the mill of acquisition" (1983 p 173) Wong Fillmore (1976) finds this claim actual in her examination of young L2 learners: The initial interaction using PL enables the learners to eventually organize sentences using the rules they base in PL.