Twin’s Characteristics on Second Language Acquisition
Abstract
This
study was conducted in a very short duration by focussing on the twins’
characteristics in acquiring L2. The comparison and contrast were made of those
fraternal twins who have different gender. The result from the observation
showed distinctive characteristics which are mostly caused by gender and
personality. It is not surprising although they are twins yet they grow as two
different individuals. The female twin was good in productive skills and an
extrovert person. She learnt by involving herself actively in the real
situation such as communication and interaction while the male was the
opposite. He prefered observing people and receiving an input. It results
differently on their production. The female was more fluent and pronounced
better while the male was more analytical and rich of diction.
INTRODUCTION
Although
some scholars said that learners are not neglected to characteristic anymore,
gaining information of this will be useful to maximize the process and produce
the best result. There are many factors influencing learners’ success in
acquiring a second language. A single factor cannot stand by itsself. Thus,
they correlate each other. The framework of this elements was adopted from Bot, Lowie, & Verspoor (2000) and Harmer (2007b).
According to them, learners characteristics are
drawn into age, aptitude and intelligence, and attitude and motivation
Pre
and perinatal environment (Lung, Shu, Chiang, & Lin, 2009) and social
interaction (Thorpe, Rutter , & Greenwood , 2003) are mentioned as
another factors influencing learners’ LA. Regarding twins, Mahieu (2011) compared them to singletons and
found they are not as smart as singletons at the same ages (Mahieu, 2011; Voracek & Haubner, 2008) . Although twins basically
come from a single egg, which is fertilized by a single sperm to form one
zygote but it then unexpectedly divides itsself into two separated embryos (Boklage,
2010; Fortuna, Goldner, & Knafo, 2010) , they grow as two
different individuals after birth. Related to this argument, there rises a
question whether twins who live in the same environment and receive the same
input have different ways in acquiring a
second language or not.
Fortuna, Goldner, & Knafo (2010) stated that twins
do not really have different ages. However, an asian especially Indonesia stereotype
of twins’ intelligence lies on their ages related to the first and second born
child. The second born as the younger is considered smarter due to an academic
achievement. Since they are born as two individuals, they show some differences
in SLA. Countless studies have been conducted in gaining information on
learners’ learning characteristics (Behabadi & Behfrouz, 2013; Hatami, 2013) and twins (Fortuna, Goldner, & Knafo, 2010; Lung, Shu, Chiang, & Lin, 2009;
Mahieu, 2011; Thorpe, Rutter , & Greenwood , 2003) . This present study
intends to weld and link up with those two issues on the twins’ learning characteristics
in acquiring L2. The specific questions are listed below.
1. What
different characteristics do the twins show in acquiring L2?
2. How
are their L2 production?
This
present study is considered relevant for a strong reason. The number of twin
birth is increasing every year and parents and teachers still assume that they
are similar in any way including learning characteristics on SLA.
METHODOLOGY
Subjects
A
pair of 7 years old fraternal twins was chosen yet they have different gender; female
and male. The female was the first born.
Their mother tongue is Bahasa Indonesia and Bahasa Madura is spoken by people ouside
the house.
Techniques and
Instruments
Observing
the subject for two days was done. To enrich the information, recording was
selected in the form of audio and audio-visual. Also, face-to-face
semi-structured interview was addressed to them and their parents.
Procedures
The
researcher conducted an observation on May, 12th - 13th
2018 to have an overview towards the twins’ daily activity at home. To derive the
needed information, she stayed in their house. Hence, she did not only observe
the subjects but also interact with them. To avoid the missing data, she
recorded their activities. Interview with the twins was conducted in an
informal way to avoid anxiety and rigidity and semi-formal situation about the
twins learning characteristics and second language production to their parents.
FINDING AND DISCUSSION
The
questions to be answered are (1) What different characteristics do the twins
show in acquiring L2? (2) How are their L2 productions?
Before
discussing the result of learners’ characteristics, it was found that those
twins have different personality. The female twin is an extrovert person. She
is confident enough to interact with a new person. Conversely, the male is
introvert and needs more time to be close to someone else.
Regarding
age, some theories and studies in the literature review show that the earlier
they learn, the better it is. Since they are twins, there is no age contrast
here yet the characteristics based on their age. The female often talked to her
dolls and pretended that they were in a middle of a certain situation. Also,
she once stood in front of mirror and talked to herself. Meanwhile, the male did
the similar activity. He played the transformer robots and a godzilla and he
narrated. He used more difficult vocabularies than the female.
“.....The robot wear the shield to protect
him from monster’s punch and use his sword to fight back. The monster dead and
the hero win ....”
Since
they show the similar way to practice speaking English by themselves, they show
the same progress and ability. Based on the interview result with their
parents, they always use their imagination and their parents provide them with
several media such as toys, cartoon movies, songs, and games. Their parents
also prevent them to play cross-gender games. Therefore, they speak based on
their gender such as the female conversation was about disney, princess,
house-keeping, gardening, cooking, etc, while the male prefered racing, robots,
mechanics, architecture, etc. This result is in line with Pullen & Cole (2010)’s studies of convergence on
multiliteracy that differing learners based on their gender will help them to
grow based on what they have to do.
Related
to retention, the female watched a cartoon movie in the television. It was
about three pigs and a wolf. Each pig wore a cloth with different colors. When
her mother came, she directly told her about that movie with detail information.
She was very communicative but was not able to express the moral value from the
movie. Whereas, the male was able to. It seemed like she was a fluent speaker
and he was an analytical person. Their parents related this differences on
their handedness. The male was left-handed. This finding correlates with Ghayas & Adil (2007) that left-handed tend
to think beyond and deeply.
The
next characteristics are the combination of gender, motivation, and attitudes.
Since the female tend to communicate in English more often than the male, her
motivation showed greater. She showed her positive attitudes when she first met
the researcher due to the ability to use English communicatively. She also
implemented her knowledge through interaction. Surprisingly, she minimized
code-mixing and code-switching and almost use English in all utterances. Since
she learns through practice, her pronunciation is good. However, the male tend
to receive an input rather than producing. His diction is more variegated yet
he is not as fluent as her. He is a wise and tactical person and could organize
his idea without being interupted by his speech speed.
The
interview resulted directly proportional with the real interaction. They are
basically well-motivated learners yet show their positive attitudes. The female
was friendly and directly became an open person. She intended to be the center
of any activity or conversation. Conversely, the male prefered listening to the
researchers and anwering if he was asked. He prefer to be accompanied playing a
game rather than being addressed some questions. Also, their parents agreed
that the female showed her interest by expressing and involving herself into a
situation. Meanwhile, the male was rarely being expressive. He indicated his
interest by listening, analyzing, and doing what was being asked. Related to
Larsen-Freeman & Long (2000)’s belief that female surpass male, it is
probably true because female tends to maximize the use of productive skills
whereas male prefers receptive skills. Thus, people might think that they who
are more productive is better in academic achievement yet they show different
development.
Summary and Implications
The
result showed that the characteristics were mostly influenced by gender which was
be framed through the ages, motivation, and attitudes. The female twin tends to
be more expressive and active than the male. She learns by practicing and
involving herself in each interaction and communication so her pronunciation is
good. Whereas, the male tends to be more quiet and analytical and prefer
receiving an input to producing a speech. Thus, his diction wa more variegated.
Despite this differences, they are both well-motivated and show their positive
attitudes on their own way.
Although
they are twins, they have different characteristics in SLA. Parents and
teachers who are involved in teaching and learning activity should know this
well. Constrasting and comparing deeply on how different they are may rise a
problem. The female twin who is more active is always considered as acquiring
better and discriminate the male. This study expect that both teachers and
parents realize in what way they acquire and develop.
References
Al-Daihani, H. A.,
Al-Yaman, A., & Almutairi, A. S. (2016). REview of factors affecting second
language learning. International Journal of Education, Learning, and
Development, 4(2), 26-34.
Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C.,
Sorensen, C. K., & Walker, D. A. (2010). Introduction to Research in
Education.
Behabadi,
F., & Behfrouz, B. (2013). Learning styles and characteristics of good
language learners in the Iranian context (A study on IELTS participants). International
Journal on New Trens in Education and Their Implications, 4(3), 41-49.
Boklage, C. E. (2010). How
new humans are made. London: World Scientific Publishing.
Bot, K. d., Lowie, W.,
& Verspoor, M. (2000). Second language acquisition. An advance source
book. New York: Routledge.
Brown, H. Doughlas. 2001. Teaching by Principles. An Interactive
Approach to Language Pedagogy. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Ellis, R. (1997). Second language acquisition.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Elo, H. (2016). Acquiring
language as a twin. Twin children´s early health, social environment and
emerging language skills. Tampere: Academic Dissertation of University of
Tampere.
Fortuna, K., Goldner, I.,
& Knafo, A. (2010). Twin relationships: A comparison across monozygotic
twins, dizygotic twins, and nontwin siblings in early childhood. Family
Science, 1(3-4), 205-211.
Ghayas, S., & Adil,
A. (2007). Effect of handedness on intelligence level of students. Journal
if the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, 33(1), 85-91.
Given, L. M. (2008). The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative
Research Methods. (L. M. Given, Ed.), The Sage Encyclopedia of
Qualitative Research Methods (1st&2nd ed.). United States of America:
SAGE Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412963909
Harmer, J. (2007b). How
to teach English. China: Pearson Education Limited.
Hatami, S. (2013).
Learning styles. ELT Journal, 67(4), 488-490. Diambil kembali dari
https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccs083
Khasinah, S. (2014).
Factors influencing second language acquisition. Englisia, 1(2),
256-269.
Lung, F., Shu, B.,
Chiang, T., & Lin, S. (2009). Twin-singleton influence on infant
development: A national birth cohort study. Child: Care, Health, and
Development, 35(3), 409-418.
Mahieu, J. K. (2011). Expressive
language development in twins versus singletons as early school age.
Illinois: Unpublished Master Thesis of University of Illinois.
McGlothlin, D. J. (1997).
A child's first steps in language learning. The Internet TESL Journal, III(10).
Diambil kembali dari http://iteslj.org/Articles/McGlothlin-ChildLearn.html
Plomin, R., & Deary,
I. J. (2015). Genetics and intelligence differences: five special findings. Molecular
Psychiatry, 20, 98-108.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital
game-based learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Pullen, D. L., &
Cole, D. R. (2010). Multiliteracies and technology enhanced education:
Social practice and the global classroom. United States of America:
Information Science Reference .
Thorpe, K., Rutter , M.,
& Greenwood , R. (2003). Twins as a natural experiment to study the causes
of mild language delay: II: Family interactions risk factors. Journal of
Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 44(3), 342 – 355.
Voracek, M., &
Haubner, T. (2008). Twin-singleton differences in intelligence: A
meta-analysis. Psychological Reports, 102, 951-962.
Comments
Post a Comment