CHAPTER II
COMPARING FIRST LANGUAGE ACQUISITION (L1) AND
SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION (L2)
2.1 Definition
2.1.1 First language
Acquisition
Language
acquisition usually refers to first
language acquisition, which studies infants' acquisition of their native
language, rather than second language acquisition, which deals with
acquisition (in both children and adults) of additional languages.
2.1.2 Second Language
Acquisition
A second
language or L2 is any language learned after the
first language or mother tongue. Some
languages, often called auxiliary languages, are
used primarily as second languages or lingua francas. A person's
first language may not be their dominant language, the one they use most or are
most comfortable with. For example, the Canadian census defines first
language for its purposes as "the first language learned in childhood
and still spoken", recognizing that for some, the earliest language may be
lost, a process known as language attrition. This
can happen when young children move, with or without their family (because of immigration or international
adoption), to a new language environment.
2.2 Second Language Acquisition Theories
Theories about how people learn to speak a second (or third or fourth) language
are directly related to the first language acquisition theories described
previously. There are two reasons why. First of all, because first language
acquisition is a universal achievement of children the world over, researchers
and educators interested in second language acquisition and teaching have often
used first language acquisition as an ideal model, one that may inform us about
how a second language might be taught. Until Chomsky, however, ideas about how
a first language was acquired were not fully developed and researched.
Behaviorists, for example, did not analyze closely the speech development of
young children, but rather extended general learning theory principles to
language development.
With the advent of Chomskyan linguistics, however, a
whole generation of psycholinguists was inspired to go out and tape record the
speech of infants and young children to analyze and describe the process of
acquiring their mother tongue. The focus of the research was to describe the
grammatical development of young children. Chomsky’s contribution to the study
of child language was his new way of looking at syntax. Researchers applied his
methods of describing syntax to the problem of describing children’s interim
grammars at different ages and stages of language development.
2.2.1 Behaviorist Theory
Behaviorist theories of language acquisition have
influenced second language teaching in a number of ways that persist today in
many classrooms. If you have taken a foreign language in high school or college,
you are probably familiar with the methods informed by behaviorist learning
theories. One behaviorist language teaching method popular in the 1960s is the
audiolingual method, in which dialogues are presented on tape for students to
memorize, followed by pattern drills for practicing verb forms and sentence
structures. Students are first taught to listen and speak and then to read and
write based on the assumption that this is the natural sequence in first language
acquisition. For behaviorists, the processes involved in second or foreign
language learning consisted of imitation, repetition, and reinforcement of
grammatical structures. Errors were to be corrected immediately to avoid
forming bad habits that would be difficult to overcome later. If you were
taught with this method, you may remember the drill-and-skill practice, often
carried out via audiotapes in a language laboratory. How well did this instruction
work for you? When we ask our students this question in classes of 40 or so,
only 1 or 2 report successful foreign language competence acquired through the
audiolingual approach.
2.2.2 Innatist Theory
Just as Chomsky’s theories inspired psycholinguists to
record and describe the developing grammars of young first language learners,
they also influenced research on second language learning. One such theory put
forth to account for second language development was the creative
construction theory (Dulay, Burt, & Krashen, 1982). In a largescale study
of Spanish-speaking and Chinese-speaking children learning English in school
(Dulay & Burt, 1974), English language samples were collected using a structured
interview based on colorful cartoon pictures. Children were asked questions
about the pictures in ways that elicited the use of
certain grammatical structures. Children’s grammatical errors were then
examined to determine whether they could be attributed to influence from the
first language or whether they were similar to the types of errors young,
native English-speaking children make. Data analysis showed that the majority
of errors were similar to those made by native English-speaking youngsters as
they acquire their mother tongue. Based on these results, the authors proposed
that English language learners creatively construct the rules of the second
language in a manner similar to that observed in first language acquisition.
Dulay and Burt therefore concluded that second language acquisition is similar
to first language acquisition.
Dulay and Burt (1974) also used their
findings to refute the hypothesis that learner errors will generally be
predictable from a contrastive analysis of the learner’s mother tongue and the
developing second language. Contrastive analysis is a procedure for comparing
phonological, morphological, and syntactic rules of two languages (the
learner’s mother tongue and his or her second language) to predict areas of
difficulty in second language development. For example, Spanish creates the
plural by adding an -s or -es ending to a noun (e.g., casa,
casas; lápiz, lápices). This rule is similar to English
pluralization. Thus by contrastive analysis, it would be predicted that plurals
in English will not be difficult for native Spanish speakers to learn. When the
rules of two languages are quite different, contrastive analysis predicts
learner difficulty. For example, Cantonese has no plural marker. The idea of
plural is conveyed by context. Thus it would be predicted that Cantonese
speakers would have difficulty forming plurals in English. Although predictions
based on contrastive analysis sometimes held true in their data analysis, Dulay
and Burt found that most English language learner errors among their subjects
were best described as similar to errors made by children acquiring English as
a first language.
2.2.3 Krashen’s Five Hypotheses
Continuing in the innatist tradition, Stephen Krashen
(1982) developed a series of hypotheses about second language acquisition that
have taken root in the field of second language teaching due in part to Krashen’s
desire to address classroom second language learning. Krashen’s five hypotheses
are: (1) the acquisition-learning hypothesis, (2) the monitor hypothesis, (3)
the natural order hypothesis, (4) the input hypothesis, and (5) the affective filter
hypothesis. Each of these is discussed here.
The Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis. One of Krashen’s first assertions was that there is a
distinct difference between acquiring and learning a second language. Acquisition,
Krashen asserts, is a natural language development process that occurs when the
target language is used in meaningful interactions with native speakers, in a
manner similar to first language acquisition—with no particular attention to form.
Language learning, in contrast, refers to the formal and conscious study of language
forms and functions as explicitly taught in foreign language classrooms. Krashen goes on to make two claims about the acquisition-learning
distinction that have generated considerable
controversy in the academic community: (1) that learning
cannot turn into acquisition, and (2) that it is only acquired language that is available for natural, fluent communication.
Krashen’s critics have pointed out that it
would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to detect which system,
acquisition or learning, is at work in any
instance of language use (McLaughlin, 1987). Furthermore, the two terms require much finer definition to be
subjected to experimental study. These
criticisms notwithstanding, Krashen’s emphasis on second language acquisition by using the new language for relevant
communicative purposes has had substantial,
positive influence on classroom practice, especially in regard to the move away from the drill-and-practice pattern aimed at
language learning.
The Monitor Hypothesis. Krashen has suggested that the formal study of language leads to the
development of an internal grammar editor or monitor. As the student produces
sentences, the monitor “watches” the output to ensure correct usage. For a
student to use the monitor three conditions are necessary: sufficient time,
focus on grammatical form, and explicit knowledge of the rules. Thus it is
easier to use the monitor for writing than for speaking. Krashen maintains that
knowing the rules only helps learners polish their language. The true base of
their language knowledge is only that which has been acquired. From this
assumption, he recommends that the focus of language teaching should be communication,
not rote rule learning, placing him in agreement with many second language
acquisition and foreign language teaching experts (cf. Celce- Murcia, 1991;
Oller, 1993).
The Natural Order Hypothesis. According to the natural order hypothesis, language learners acquire
(rather than learn) the rules of a language in a predictable sequence. That is,
certain grammatical features, or morphemes, tend to be acquired early, whereas
others tend to be acquired late. Figure 2.2 illustrates this view. A
considerable number of morpheme studies support the general existence of a
natural order of acquisition of English grammatical features by child and adult
non-native English learners. However, individual variations exist, as do
variations that may result from primary language influence (Lightbown &
Spada, 1993; Pica, 1994).
The Input Hypothesis. Central to
Krashen’s view of second language acquisition is the input hypothesis.
According to the input hypothesis, the acquisition of a second language is the
direct result of learners’ understanding the target language in natural
communication situations. A key element of the input hypothesis is that the
input language must not only be understandable, thus the term comprehensible
input, but should contain grammatical structures that are just a bit beyond
the acquirer’s current level of second language development (abbreviated as i
+ 1, with i standing for input and +1 indicating the challenging
level that is a bit beyond the learner’s current level of proficiency). Krashen
suggests that acquirers are able to understand this challenging level of
language input by using context, extralinguistic information such as gestures
and pictures, and general background knowledge. In other words, input can be
made
comprehensible as a result of these extra cues. Moreover, acquisition is
facilitated by a focus on communication and not grammatical form. In summary,
according to Krashen, language is acquired (not learned) by understanding input
that contains linguistic structures that are just beyond the acquirer’s current
level of competence (i _ 1). Speech is not taught directly but emerges
on its own. Early speech is typically not grammatically accurate. If input is
understood and there is enough of it, i _ 1 is automatically provided. According
to Krashen, we do not have to deliberately program grammatical structures into
the input. Although Krashen’s theory is particularly concerned with the
grammatical structures contained in the input, vocabulary is also an
important element in i _ 1. Krashen emphasizes free-choice reading
on topics of interest to students as an excellent way to acquire both vocabulary
and other aspects of language.
The Affective Filter Hypothesis. Krashen’s fifth hypothesis addresses affective or social–emotional
variables related to second language acquisition. Citing a variety of studies,
Krashen concludes that the most important affective variables favoring second
language acquisition are a low-anxiety learning environment, student motivation
to learn the language, self-confidence, and self-esteem. Krashen summarizes the
five hypotheses in a single claim: “People acquire second languages when they
obtain comprehensible input and when their affective filters are low enough to
allow the input in [to the language acquisition device]” (Krashen, 1981a, p.
62). For Krashen, then, comprehensible input is the causative variable in
second language acquisition. In other words, listening to and understanding spoken
language is the essential ingredient in second language acquisition. For this
reason, Krashen urges teachers not to force production, but rather to allow
students a silent period during which they can acquire some language knowledge
by listening and understanding, as opposed to learning it through meaningless
rote drills.
In summary, Krashen’s second language acquisition
theories have been influential in promoting language teaching practices that
(1) focus on communication, not grammatical form; (2) allow students a silent
period, rather than forcing immediate speech production; and (3) create a
low-anxiety environment. His notion of comprehensible input provides a
theoretical cornerstone for sheltered instruction, or specially designed
academic instruction in English (SDAIE). More questionable theoretically,
however, are his acquisition/learning distinction and the notion that
comprehensible input alone accounts for language acquisition. The importance of
output, that is, speaking and writing, cannot be ignored in a balanced view of
language acquisition (Swain, 1985). Finally, evidence indicates that some
grammatical forms may not develop without explicit instruction (Harley, Allen,
Cummins, & Swain, 1990).
|
FIGURE 2.1 ACQUISITION OF ENGLISH MORPHEMES
2.2.4 Interactionist Theory
The idea that comprehensible input is necessary for
second language acquisition also forms a basic tenet of the interactionist
position. However, interactionists view the communicative give and take of
natural conversations between native and non-nativen speakers as the crucial
element of the language acquisition process (Long & Porter, 1985). Their
focus is on the ways in which native speakers modify their speech to try to
make themselves understood by English-learning conversational partners.
Interactionists are also interested in how non-native speakers use their budding
knowledge of the new language to get their ideas across and to achieve their
communicative goals. This trial-and-error process of give-and-take in communication as people try to understand and be understood is referred to as
the negotiation of meaning. As meaning
is negotiated, non-native speakers are actually
able to exert some control over the communication process during conversations, thereby causing their partners to
provide input that is more comprehensible.
They do this by asking for repetitions, indicating they don’t understand, or responding in a way that shows they
did not understand. The listener’s natural
response is then to paraphrase or perhaps use some other cue to convey meaning, such as gesturing, drawing, or
modified speech (sometimes referred to as
“foreigner talk,” which is somewhat analogous to caregiver speech in first language acquisition).
In addition to the importance placed on social
interaction, some researchers have looked more closely at output, or the speech
produced by English language learners, as an important variable in the overall
language acquisition process (Swain, 1985). We have seen that the language
learner’s output can serve to elicit modification of input from conversational
partners to make it more comprehensible. The three theoretical perspectives
bear certain implications for instruction, as outlined in Table 2.2. As you
read the chart, you will see how the three theoretical perspectives compare in
terms of the source and nature of linguistic input tolearners, ideal classroom
composition vis-à-vis native speakers and second language learners, student
output, pressure to speak or produce output, and treatment of learner errors.
TABLE 2.3 INSTRUCTIONAL IMPLICATIONS OF SECOND LANGUAGE
ACQUISITION THEORIES
|
INSTRUCTIONAL
COMPONENTS
|
BEHAVIORIST
|
INNATIST
|
INTERACTIONIST
|
|
Source of
linguistic
input
|
language dialogues
and drills from teacher
or audiotape
|
natural language from
the teacher, friends, or
books
|
natural language from the
teacher, friends, or books
|
|
Nature of
input
|
structured by
grammatical
complexity
|
unstructured, but made
comprehensible by
teacher
|
unstructured, but focused on
communication between
learner and others
|
|
Ideal
classroom
composition
|
all target language
learners of similar
second language
proficiency
|
target language learners
of similar second language
proficiency so i + 1
can be achieved
|
native speakers together
with target language
learners for social
interaction aimed at
communication
|
|
Student
output
|
structured repetitions
and grammar pattern
drill responses
|
output is not a concern;
it will occur naturally
|
speaking occurs
naturally in communication
with others
|
|
Pressure to
speak
|
students repeat
immediately
|
“silent period” expected
|
no pressure to speak
except natural impulse
to communicate
|
|
Treatment of
errors
|
errors are corrected
immediately
|
errors are not corrected;
students will correct
themselves with time
|
errors that impede
communication will be
corrected naturally as
meaning is negotiated;
some errors may require
explicit corrective
instruction
|
2.3 Processes and Factors in Learning a Second language
The processes and factors influencing English learners
in school, particularly the social context of second language acquisition, age
and the interplay of social and cognitive factors in the second language
acquisition process, social, versus academic language use,
comprehensible input and social interaction, and the
treatment of language learning errors in the classroom.
2.3.1 The
language learning environment (immersion versus foreign language)
One factor that affects second language acquisition is the social context
in which the second language was learned. Have you ever studied another
language, or do you know someone who has? How did you learn it? And how well
did you learn it? When we ask our students this question, we hear a wonderful
variety of second language learning stories. Most of our students have had the
experience of studying a foreign language in high school or college. They often
recall specific foreign language teaching techniques for learning the grammar,
pronunciation, and vocabulary, usually of a European language such as French,
German, or Spanish. Many also remember activities such as choral repetition of
sentence patterns, memorization of vocabulary items, and perhaps in-class
opportunities to put these together in writing or simulated conversations.
Under these learning conditions,
some basic knowledge of the language may have developed. However, few people
report reaching a substantial level of communicative competence unless they
spent time in a country where the language was spoken. The opportunity for foreign
travel or residency often bears fruit for second language development based on
the seed of classroom instruction. In contrast, students who have come to the
United States as immigrants have a different language learning story to tell.
Many hold vivid memories of entering elementary or high school knowing not a
word of English and feeling frightened and baffled at the world around them.
They struggled for months, perhaps years, to become acclimated to the new
language and culture. All too often, immigrant students are overcome by these
demands and drop out of school. Yet others learn English well enough to be
successful in university classes, though perhaps retaining a foreign accent.
Reflecting on your own language learning experiences and talking with other
people about how they learned a second language can provide insights into the
process of second language acquisition. What can we learn from different language
learning stories?
Perhaps the first thing we can see is a distinction
between studying a foreign
language for one period a day in school and learning a language through immersion
in a social environment, including the school, where the target language is
used regularly for day-to-day communication. Differences between these two
language acquisition contexts directly affect the language learning process.
Students immersed in an environment in which the new language is spoken have
the advantage of being surrounded with opportunities to hear and use it. The
larger social environment features the new language, not only in the classroom
but also everywhere else—in shopping malls, at the theater, on television, in
newspapers, and more. As a result, classroom learning can be solidifiedand
expanded to the extent that learners interact within the larger community
(Dulay et al., 1982). In addition, students learning the language of their new
country are likely to be motivated, because success in acquiring strong English
skills is important for day-to-day functioning and full participation in
society.
In a social immersion situation in which learners live
in a country where the target language is spoken, second language acquisition
is facilitated by the rich language exposure available and by the inherent need
to communicate. At the same time, students are challenged to the highest
levels of oral and written acquisition because they will need native-like
skills to qualify for future education and employment opportunities. In
contrast, foreign language study tends to be limited in opportunities and
necessity to use the language for functional communication. Similarly, the
expectations for accomplishment are correspondingly lower. When students enter
your class knowing little English, they have the benefits of an immersion
situation because the new language is used both in school and in the larger
environment. At the same time, some may feel pressured by their need to learn
the new language as quickly as possible.
2.3.2 Social and Cultural Factors
Montha was the eldest of six children. She had been educated in Cambodia
and was literate in Khmer when she arrived, but her education took place
entirely in English after she moved to the United States. The family spoke
Khmer at home but nowhere else did she use or hear her home language. Montha
remembers how difficult it was to fit in at school, where she knew neither the
language nor the customs of her schoolmates. She felt frightened and isolated,
because there were no other Cambodians in her school. To exacerbate the
situation, at age 12 she was self-conscious and concerned about being
different. Nonetheless, she gradually found her way into school social
groups and began to acquire English. Reflecting back, Montha feels that her
younger siblings had more chances to interact with fluent English speakers than
she did. For one thing, as the eldest daughter, Montha was expected to help her
mother daily with household chores, whereas her sisters were permitted to play
with other children in the neighborhood. In addition, as an adolescent, she was
not permitted to date or to go out with friends in cars, an accepted pastime of
many U.S. teenagers. For these activities,
she had to wait until she had graduated from high school and no longer lived
with her parents. In these ways, we see how the age differences between Montha
and her younger siblings affected social participation with Englishspeaking friends
based on her family’s cultural expectations.
From this brief example, we can see how age interacted
with social and cultural
factors to constrain Montha’s social language learning opportunities. First
of all, she entered the U.S. social scene at an age when cultural expectations
of teenagers differed considerably between her home culture and that of the
larger society. Remaining at home to help her mother, she was restricted from
certain aspects of social participation that might have helped her learn
English. In contrast, her siblings were young enough to be permitted to play
with Englishspeaking neighborhood children, and this type of play was
acceptable to Montha’s parents. In other words, Montha’s siblings, by virtue of
their age, were permitted a broader range of age-appropriate social activity
acceptable to both Cambodian and U.S. parents, and this, very likely,
facilitated language acquisition.
2.3.3 Personality Factors
Despite these external social and cultural restraints,
Montha did become proficient in English, no doubt due in part to certain
personal attributes, including unflagging determination and persistence in
achieving her goals. At this point in her life, she was dedicated to becoming a
teacher of English learners, and was working on passing the basic skills test
required to enter the teaching credential program. Another personal attribute
was her particularly sensitive and empathetic attitude toward others, which
certainly played a role in her desire to teach and may also have motivated her
English language acquisition. Given that there were no other Cambodian families
in her school or neighborhood, her social contacts required English, and Montha
was a person who thrived on social relationships.
2.3.4 Cognitive
Factor
Montha was a successful English learner who went on to
earn a baccalaureate degree at a state university. By age 12 when she came to the
United States, she had developed substantial cognitive, literacy, and academic abilities
in her first language. These abilities no doubt contributed to her success in
high school and college, given the fact that well-developed academic skills and
strategies transfer between a bilingual’s two languages (Cummins, 1981).
Montha’s journey was nonetheless a difficult one. Academic development in her
primary language ceased on her arrival, and she had a great deal of academic
English to acquire before she could qualify for the university. Once there, she
struggled to earn the grades that would allow her to go on for a teaching
credential. In addition, she had difficulty passing the timed reading, writing,
and math examinations required for the teaching credential. Without her
persistent nature and her commitment to helping children reminiscent of her
former self, she would most likely not have been able to push through and become
a teacher. But she did!
Montha’s English developed fully, though
she retained some pronunciation features that set her apart from native English
speakers. She also maintained fluency in Khmer and a strong ethnic identity. As
a postscript, Montha tells us that her mother never did learn English. Being an
adult, her mother was not required to attend school daily as her children were.
Nor did she seek work outside the home as her husband did. Thus, she did not
find herself in social contexts that might have provided the exposure and
motivation needed for English language acquisition. These days, Montha’s mother
takes a great deal of pride in Montha’s accomplishments as a bilingual teacher
and serves as a valuable resource when Montha needs a forgotten phrase in Khmer
or some detail of a cultural tradition to include in her curriculum at school.
Montha’s case highlights how her age on arrival interacted with sociocultural,
cognitive, and personality factors in her language acquisition process and in
her journey to becoming a bilingual teacher.
2.3.5 Age Factor
Another age-related factor affecting second language acquisition is the
level of cognitive-academic functioning normally expected across the grades
from elementary through high school. A general task for all English language
learners is to gain enough English proficiency to carry out school tasks about
as well as their English fluent peers. For kindergarten and first-grade
children, the linguistic performance gap between English language learners and
their English-speaking age mates is relatively small. After all, monolingual
children are still developing both language and concepts during the primary
grades. Furthermore, learning for all young children is best derived from
direct experience, manipulation of concrete objects, and social interaction
with adults and peers. As kindergarten teachers know, younger children learn
more by talking while doing than by listening to a long verbal explanation from
the teacher. The same holds true for young English language learners. Thus,
learning environments that are age appropriate for younger monolingual children
tend to be optimal for young English language learners as well. Nevertheless,
special accommodations are needed to help young English learners adjust to a
school, understand instruction, learn English, and succeed socially and
academically.
For older immigrant students, academic learning presents
greater demands on second language proficiency than for younger newcomers
(Ovando et al., 2003). They have further to go and less time to catch up than
their younger brothers and sisters, as we saw in Montha’s case. From middle
school on, and sometimes earlier, we expect students to be able to learn from
lecture-style verbal instruction at least some of the time. Furthermore,
subject matter grows increasingly complex and abstract. Thus, students who are
older on arrival have a larger language gap to fill before they will be able to
function academically in English at a level commensurate with their English
fluent peers. On the other hand, precisely because they are older, they bring
the advantages of a well-developed cognitive and conceptual system. Moreover,
they may have had sufficient schooling in their home country to be facile in
literacy and numeracy skills. If so, they stand a good chance of academic
success, provided that their new school offers systematic support for both
second language development, social-cultural adjustment, and continued content
area learning. Other students may have had little schooling, or their
educational opportunities may have been interrupted by war, political turmoil,
or the struggles involved in leaving their home country. In such cases, students
will need extra support as they grapple with academic literacy, content area
learning, and social-cultural adjustment in their new country.
Factors in
Second Language Acquisition:
- The language learning environment (immersion
versus foreign language),
- Age,
- Cognitive Development,
- The Cultures of
Home and School,
- Interact to motivate and give purpose to second
language acquisition
- Comprehensible Input,
- Social Interaction,
- Learner Errors,
- Differences between Social and Academic Language Development.
No comments:
Post a Comment