First+and+Second+Language+Acquisition

The capacity to learn language is deeply ingrained in us as a species, just as the capacity to walk, to grasp objects, to recognize faces. We don’t find any serious differences in children growing up in congested urban slums, in isolated mountain villages, or in privileged suburban villas. (Dan Slobin 1994 cited in Fromkin et al. 2003, p. 341)

In explaining what Slobin means by his statement and answering the question of whether the capacity of children to learn a first language is able to be accessed in the course of acquiring a second language, I will begin by looking at first language acquisition and then second language acquisition. As you will see, while there are some similarities between both processes, there are some significant differences which impact on the question. I will touch on some of the more important theories related to both fields, discuss the influence of first language acquisition in second language acquisition, and then answer the question of whether the second language learner has access to Universal Grammar.

The learning of our first or native language is according to Emmitt & Pollock (1997) the most remarkable intellectual accomplishment of any individual. What is astonishing about this feat is that we do it at such an early age and without any explicit instruction. How children master the use of such a complex tool as language has been the subject of much thought and study. (King, 2006, p. 205) The many who have attempted to answer this question have tackled it from various angles and so there are a number of theories that try to explain the process of first language acquisition. (Emmitt & Pollock, 1997, p. 161). These theories can be broadly divided in to three categories which are behaviorist, nativist, and functional. (Brown, 2000, p. 30).

According to King (2006, p. 224) principles of behaviorism had significant influence on the first theories that attempted to account for first language acquisition. Behaviorism views the process as a habit or behavior which is acquired through general learning principles. These principles can include imitation, reinforcement and punishment.

In contrast to behaviorist theories, King (2006, p 225) explains the nativist approach as seeing language as an innate ability and not something which is learned through general learning principles. Nativists contend that all children free of severe intellectual or physical impairment acquire language quickly and with minimal difficulty. In contrast, most adults struggle to master a second language and do so at a much slower pace.

Central to the Nativist view is Noam Chomsky’s theory of Universal Grammar (UG) which explains how children are able to formulate, from such a restricted level of input from their parents and the environment, a very sophisticated level of output in such a short time. Nativists explain this achievement as being possible due to the Language Acquisition Device (LAD) (Mackey, 2006, pp. 441, 442). Trask (1999, p. 142) explains that the LAD can be viewed as a structure in the brain that extracts, from sometimes disorganized and incorrect speech, generalizations that allow the child to develop a set of phonological and grammatical rules.

Early on in his career Chomsky attacked the behaviorist concept of language learning connected to B. F. Skinner. In Skinner’s view, language is seen as a set of habits acquired by the learner imitating the language that they are exposed to and experimenting through trial and error. Children take on habits according to positive or negative external reinforcement. Chomsky claims this process is actually not helpful in language acquisition because parents tend to reward statements that are factually rather than grammatically correct. Additionally, he claims much of the input they are exposed to, which Skinner believed they were copying, is full of errors and incomplete utterances. Through this, Chomsky was able to demonstrate that children are actively involved in forming their own rules and arranging input in a systematic way. (Finch, 2005, p. 12)

Brown (2000, p28) explains that the functional view looks at acquisition from a social interaction point of view and differs from the nativist view in it that focuses more on the function than the form of language. Functions refer to the meaningful and interactive purposes of language within a social context. Functional or sociocultural theory states that language development comes through individuals interacting with one another. There is a reciprocal behavioral system where there is an interplay between the infant learning L1 and the competent adult user who takes on the socializing-nurturing-teaching role. (Brown, 2000, p. 29)

Of these theories of language acquisition, the one that has influenced the field most significantly is the nativist view. Slobin’s statement appears to be a support of this view of first language acquisition and seems to fit well within Chomsky’s theory of UG, which sees our ability to use language as primarily biological. According to Trask (1999, p. 141), Chomsky's innateness hypothesis claims we are born with a substantial knowledge of language and we only learn the specific details of our mother tongue. The following quote by Bauer, Holmes, & Warren (2006, p. 213) sums up this view clearly, “Children seem to soak up their first language like sponges. While they are not born with a particular language, children are certainly predisposed towards learning a first language. It seems as long as they get language input, they will seek out structures and regularities in that input and learn the language.”

One example to support the idea of acquisition as innate comes from experiments conducted on children as young as eighteen months who have only very basic vocal production skills, which show that seemingly they can differentiate between syntactic structures of two sentences with near or exactly the same words but with differing word orders. This would suggest that very young children’s linguistic competence is more developed than one might have expected given the input they receive. (Fromkin, Rodman, & Hyams, 2007, p. 333)

When discussing either first or second language acquisition theory, it is important to make a clear distinction between the terms ‘learning’ and ‘acquisition’. Yule (2006, p. 163) gives clear definitions of each term. He defines acquisition as, “… the gradual development of ability in a language by using it naturally in communicative situations with others who know the language.” Learning, on the other hand, is seen as, “… a more conscious process of accumulating knowledge of features, such as vocabulary and grammar, of a language, typically in an institutional setting.”

Krashen and Terrell as noted by de Bot, Lowie, & Verspoor (2005, p. 8) use the term subconscious to describe acquisition. Such as in the case where most native speakers are not able to explain why a certain utterance is incorrect in their mother tongue but they most certainly do know what is and what is not acceptable.

A clear distinction of terms is helpful in understanding how first language develops. For example, in the view of Chomsky as cited in Smith (1999, p. 117), the term ‘learning’ is not relevant when looking at L1 acquisition. He claims we do not actually learn our first language, but rather somehow language develops in the mind.

Smith (1999, p. 117) sees this claim as having two important implications. The first is that the development of a first language follows more like the development of skills such as and similar to walking and less like the traditional understanding of processes related to learning. Secondly, the development of a first language should develop according to critical period principles where individuals, regardless of background or language being acquired, pass through the same stages of development.

While the argument for innateness in first language acquisition is strong, it does not answer all the questions. The answers are not just important to linguistic theory but will lead to a better understanding of ourselves. Stephen Pinker, a strong advocate of the Chomskyan view, suggests that unlocking the secrets to language acquisition could ultimately help us better understand how heredity and environment interact to shape us. He adds that any theory that attributes too much credit to nurture or on the other hand nature is not credible. In his opinion, it is obvious both have a hand to play. (Pinker)

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">There has been a great deal of interest and also disagreement on the issue of the role of first language in second language acquisition. On one side, it was believed in by what is termed as the Contrastive Analysis approach (rooted in behaviorism) that first language knowledge can be transferred to the process of second language acquisition. In this case, a comparison of the two languages concerned is necessary so as to predict what knowledge will aid or block the acquisition of the new language. (Bauer et al., 2006, p. 218) Claims by the Contrastive Analysis approach that all L2 errors can be explained by differences with L1 have been shown to be weak. However, while it is not possible to predict L2 errors by examining the L1, there is evidence to support that L1 does affect L2 acquisition in less obvious and complex ways. For instance, in the beginning stages of acquiring L2, learners often knowingly use knowledge of L1 to help them communicate. (Mackey, 2006, p. 446)

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The other side, labeled the Interlanguage approach (rooted in nativism), does not see first language as having much interference and second language learning follows a developmental sequence just as in first language acquisition. (Bauer et al., 2006, p. 218). In the Interlanguage view, all second language learners go through similar broad stages of development but the order of development can be different. The order of development may be similar to that in L1 acquisition. In the Interlanguage approach, L1 and age related cognitive abilities are seen to affect L2 acquisition. (Ellis, 1985, p. 73)

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">While the notion of the UG having a significant impact upon L1 acquisition is widely supported, when the same idea is applied to L2 acquisition it appears there is far less agreement. (Miesel, 1998, p. 1) Cook (2001, p. 500) says we need to ask whether there is direct, indirect, or no access to UG in the course of L2 acquisition. She also states that the question of whether or not L2 learners have access to UG is the same as asking whether L1 acquisition is like L2 acquisition.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Chomsky in (Miesel, 1998) acknowledges that L2 acquisition is very different from that of L1 acquisition. In accordance with the critical period hypothesis, he explains that language like other areas of human development happens easily at a certain age but not later. In other words, the LAD or UG is harder to access after a certain point. In most cases, this loss or reduction of access occurs around the time of and or after adolescence. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Approaches to second language teaching in the 1960s and 1970s sought to apply principles of first language acquisition. These approaches failed to recognize key differences between first and second language acquisition. (Bauer et al., 2006, p. 213)

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Emmitt & Pollock (1997, p. 187) suggest that L2 learning should be easier than L1 learning because the L2 learner already has demonstrated a capacity for working out how language works and in addition does not have to develop the basic interpretations of the world that are required for first language acquisition. However, there are many factors that affect L2 acquisition which seem not to affect L1 acquisition. In contrast to L1 acquisition, individual differences among learners have a significant impact on acquisition.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Age of the L2 learner is according to Mackey (2006) the strongest indicator of their success in acquiring a new language. She adds that the critical period hypothesis has been used to explain why children are able to learn a second language with such ease. Moskovosky (2001, p. 1) claims that the hypothesis views the ability to acquire a first language as being restricted to the years prior to the onset of adolescence, after which the ability gradually diminishes. He also points out that since this idea was first put forward in the 1960’s it has been one of the most controversial issues in psycholinguistics and cognitive science.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">There does seem to be; however, some strong evidence to support the notion. Trask (1999, p. 64) uses the example of feral children as evidence. These children were in their younger years denied access to language. Those who were subsequently exposed to language at earlier age fared much better at acquiring language than those who were older. So while it seems feasible that the critical period plays a hand in first language acquisition. It is on the other hand according to Moskovosky, (2001) far less certain when looking and second language acquisition.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">According to Cook (2001, p. 492), in almost every case L1 acquisition is thoroughly successful, whereas in L2 acquisition this is not the case. Schacter as cited in Cook (2001) supports this by saying that the grammars of L2 learners are not fully realized. In addition Selinker also in Cook (2001) states that L2 language contains fossilization or in other words L2 learners are not able move past certain stages in either one or more aspects of the new language.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Some research has challenged the conventional wisdom that children are better at acquiring second languages than adults. However, these findings seem to support the view held by Krashen among others that in the short term adults are better at acquiring a new language but over the long term it is children who prove to be more successful. (Cook, 2001, p. 494) It is generally agreed that age does have impacts upon L2 acquisition; however, just what the impacts are and their associated causes seem to be unclear. (Cook, 2001, p. 496)

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">It is clear from my research for this assignment is that we, as of yet, do not fully understand many things about language. Do second language learners have access to UG? This it seems is just another of many questions yet to be answered. What is apparent in my view is that while we are not completely certain if an L2 learner has any access to the same innate capacities as a child in L1 acquisition, what we can probably assume with some confidence is that any access is greatly diminished after a certain age. This could partly explain difficulties older learners have in acquiring languages. What is also clear is that apart from any lack of access to an LAD there are other factors which play a significant hand in making the task of mastering a new tongue, particularly for older learners, a considerable challenge. So if we assume that the capacities of children to acquire their mother tongue or in other words UG are in fact able to be called upon in acquiring a new tongue we should probably also assume that child L2 learners have greater use of it than adult L2 learners. If this is true then the approaches and techniques we use to pass on a new language should differ according to the age of the learner so as to make optimal use of their cognitive abilities and make the experience less painful and hopefully more successful.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">References

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Bauer, L., Holmes, J., & Warren, P. (2006). Language Matters. Palgrave Macmillan. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Brown, H. D. (2000). First Language Acquisition: Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. New York: Pearson Education. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Cook, V. (2001). Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition: One Person with Two Languages. In M. Aronoff, & J. Rees-Miller, The Handbook of Linguistics (pp. 488 - 511). Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers Inc. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">de Bot, K., Lowie, W., & Verspoor, M. (2005). Second Language Acquisition. New York: Routledge. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Ellis, R. (1985). Understanding Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Emmitt, M., & Pollock, J. (1997). Language and Learning: An introduction for Teaching 2nd edition. Oxford University Press. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Finch, G. (2005). Key Concepts in Language and Linguistics Second Edition. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Fromkin, V., Rodman, R., & Hyams, N. (2007). An Introduction to Language (8th ed.). Boston: Thomson Wadsworth. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">King, K. A. (2006). Child Language Acquisition. In R. W. Fasold, & J. Connor-Linton, An Introduction to Language and Linguistics (pp. 205 - 234). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Mackey, A. (2006). Second Language Acquisition. In R. W. Fasold, & J. Connor-Linton, An Introduction to Language and Linguistics. University of Cambridge Press. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Miesel, J. M. (1998). Revisiting Universal Grammar. 18th Second Language Research Forum (p. 9). Honolulu : University of Hawaii. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Moskovosky, C. (2001). The Critical Period Hypothesis Revisited. Proceedings of the 2001 Conference of the Australian Linguistic Society, (pp. 1-8). <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Pinker, S. (n.d.). Language Acquisition. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Smith, N. (1999). Chomsky: Ideas and Ideals. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Trask, R. (1999). Key Concepts in Language and Linguistics. London : Routledge. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Yule, G. (2006). The Study of Language 3rd Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.