|
|
|
Differences in First and Second Language Acquisition
Paper presented at the Kansai JACET Spring Conference Presentation
University of Marketing and Distribution, Kobe.
June 5th, 2004.
|
|
|
|
This paper will discuss the similarities and differences between first and second language acquisition and the implications of this for the teaching and learning of second language learners. The issue is complicated, (a) because first and second language learners vary in many ways from each other, and (b) because of divergent theoretical approaches used in designing research and the results arising from such research. |
|
|
|
Three factors need to be considered:
1. Theoretical- Behaviourism
- Nativist approach
- No access hypothesis
- Partial access hypothesis
- Full access hypothesis
- Dual access hypothesis
- Functional Approaches
- Cognitivism
- Language learning is a process similar to any other kind of learning
- Parallel Distributed Processing
- Social Constructivists
|
2. Language learning- Second language learners already possess the means to form propositions in their first language, but they, like first language learners, need to “find out how to communicate speech acts and thematic information...”, which is culturally constructed.
- Differences:
- the purposes for language learning
- the kind of input
- the kind and amount of attention received by the learner from the instructor or conversational partner (if any)
- the kind of responses deemed appropriate by the instructor or conversational partner
- the ability of the learner to provide responses coded for understanding and informational needs of the listener
- the ability of the learner to be able to “draw upon a variety of sources of information in the situation and his past experience in order to interpret and fill out the message that he actually hears from the speech signal”. (Wells, 1981)
- the ability of the learner to recognise, understand and engage in culturally constructed discourse types
- the ability of the learner to be able to internalise and then produce texts resulting from jointly constructed texts arising from shared experiences, thereby internalising new forms and engaging in planned speech
- the ability of instructor or conversational partner to direct learners attention to salient strategies for the completion of a culturally constructed task
- the ability of the instructor in formal instructional situations to accurately judge and design tasks to take advantage of the linguistic and cultural “zone of proximal development”, while realising that other areas may be fully developed
- due to L1 fluency, age and life experienceL2 learners already have a language enabling flexibility in thought to assist planning, etc.
- ability of conversational partners to “scaffold” for the learner
- availability of examples of texts and ability of instructor or conversational partner to make explicit features of genre, register, etc
- willingness of instructor and learner to change roles as ability improves
- interest of the instructor or conversational partner in encouraging production by the learner
|
|
|
|
3. Language learners- Clark and Clark (1977, in Ellis, 1995)) describe the task of a first language learner thus: “From the outset children are faced with two general problems. First of all, they have to figure out how to map their ideas and general knowledge onto propositions ... Second they have to find out how to communicate speech acts and thematic information along with the propositional content of their utterances” (p. 79)
- Ellis (1995) refers to Peter’s (1977) assertion which indicates that children have different preferred learning styles - gestalt and analytical - which may also influence rates of language acquisition. Other possible learner attributes to variability in rate of acquisition “include sex, intelligence, personality and learning style, social background, and experience of linguistic interaction” (Well, 1981). Other factors which may account for differences in language acquisition in children include: working memory (Hulme & Roodenrys, 1995; Nelson, 1995); time windows (Rovee-Collier, 1995) ; birth order (Pine, 1995); ability to “bootstrap” (Naigles & Hoff-Ginsberg, 1995); social risk (Morriset, Barnard & Booth, 1995); and sociocultural influences (Gauvain, 1995). Rovee-Collier advances the theory that the developmental changes in perception of speech can be explained by the operation of time windows operating within a psychological constraint.
- Second language learners are cognitively more mature than first language learners, and already possess a highly developed system of categorisation and domain relationships in their first language, as well as mastery of pragmatic and morphological items. The challenge in second language learning is to map vast amounts of new vocabulary items onto a new grammar and adjust categories which are salient in L1, but not L2.
- learning styles
- differences in difficulty of input and grading of vocabulary, syntax, speaking rate and clarity; use of idioms; discussion of complex concepts and utilisation of difficult linguistic patterns; peer pressure effects; fear of losing socio-cultural identity; the existence of a supportive atmosphere (Krashen, et al., 1982); time constraints, opportunity and exposure; motivation; and the “monitor effect”.
- Rate of acquisition, type of proficiency and ultimate level of proficiency in L2 will also be affected by a number of learner variables, eg learner attitudes, aptitude, age, gender, class, learner’s choice of target language variety, as well as the social contexts of L2 learning.
|
Conclusion
As can be seen from this list of differences, there are many challenges facing teachers and learners in L2 learning. Some of the implications have been noted in the list. The basic implication for teachers is that of the theoretical approaches available for understanding processes of language acquisition, the two most helpful are the pragmatic and the cognitive approaches. Although much research has been done in these fields, they are accessible enough for individual teachers to be able to undertake research using their own students in order to make the learning experience more helpful for the student. Such research will point the way for the teacher in such aspects of their professional development as new research questions, revised classroom practice, and more appropriate materials selection and development. When deciding materials or activities, teachers need to be aware of the type of specifically cultural information students possess and that they would need to communicate to someone from a different culture.
The basic implication for language learners is that since language is culturally constructed, it is of the utmost import that exposure to a wide variety of realia is achieved by the learner. This cannot be a passive exposure. The learner needs to analyse the material in terms of field, channel, and register and to consider how well the example fits the genre. In short, the learner needs to be able to understand and use the basics of a functional grammar in order to augment the filling in, packaging and unpackaging of information, and the sources and experiences which are available in L1.
This in turn implies the necessity to teach a basic version of functional grammar and encourage learners to analyse language, not just try and learn by rote. The role and responsibility of the learner for their own learning is also implicit, as is the responsibility that both teachers and learners have in attempting to create a shared culture in which all respect the attempts of others to communicate as well as possible with each other.
Although cognitive and pragmatic approaches appear to hold the most promise for understanding language learning and being able to begin to devise an informed pedagogy, it is also necessary to look to the other theories and the results from those paradigms. It would be foolish to dismiss consistent findings, or to ignore unresolved issues. A mature pedagogical approach will investigate each in turn, and consider the results that are most beneficial to the understanding of language learning and language teaching.
|
|
|
|
References
Asher and Garcia, (1969). The optimal age to learn a foreign language. Modern Language Journal, 53, (5), 334-341
Brown, H. D. (1987). Principles of language, learning and teaching (Second Edition), (pp15-37). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall .
Dellar, H. (In Press). Grammar is dead! Long live grammar!! The Language Teacher
de Villiers , J & de Villiers, P. (1978). Language acquisition. Harvard University Press.
Ellis, R. (1995). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford University Press.
Epstein, S.D., Flynn, S., & Martohardjono, G. (1996). Second language acquisition: Theoretical and experimental issues in contemporary research. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 19 (4), 677-758.
Garton, A and Pratt, C. (1989). Learning to be literate. (pp. 33-60). Oxford: Blackwell.
Gauvain, M. (1995). Thinking in niches: Sociocultural influences on cognitive development. Human Development, 38 (1), 25 -45.
Hoff-Ginsberg, E. (1995). Input to verb learning: Evidence for the plausibility of syntactic bootstrapping. Developmental Psychology, 31 (5), 827 - 837.
Hulme, C and Roodenrys, S. (1995). Practitioner review: Verbal working memory development and its disorder. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 36 (3), 373-98.
Hurford, J. (1991). The evolution of the critical period for language acquisition. Cognition, 40, 159 - 201.
Johnson, J., and Newport, E. (1991). Critical Period effects on universal properties of language: the status of subjacency in the acquisition of a second language. Cognition, 39, 215 - 258
Krashen, S., Scarcella, R., and Long, M (Eds). (1982). Child-Adult Differences in Second Language Acquisition. Newbury House Publishers, Inc
Krashen, S. (1988). Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Prentice Hall.
Long, M. (1990). Maturational Constraints on Language Development. Studies in second language acquisition, 12, 251 - 85.
Marcotte, A. & Morere, D. (1990). Speech lateralization in deaf populations: Evidence for a developmental critical period. Brain and Language, 39, 134 - 152.
Mayberry, R. & Eichen, E. (1990). The long -lasting advantage of learning sign language in childhood: Another look at the critical period for language acquisition. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 486 - 512.
McCarthy, M. (In Press). Lessons from the analysis of chunks. The Language Teacher.
McLaughlin, B. (1978). Second Language Acquisition in Childhood. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Morisset, C., Barnard, K., & Booth, C. (1995). Toddlers’ language development: Sex differences within social risk. Developmental Psychology, 31 (5), 851 - 865.
Mueller, R.A. (1996). Innateness, autonomy, universality? Neurobiological approaches to language. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 19 (4), 611-675.
Nelson, C. (1995). The ontogeny of human memory: A cognitive neuroscience perspective? Developmental Psychology, 31 (5), 723 - 738.
Painter, C. (1986). The role of interaction in learning to speak and learning to write. In C. Painter and J.R. Martin (Eds). Writing to mean: Teaching Genres across the curriculum. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics. Occasional Papers, 9: 62-97
Palij, M. (1990). Acquiring English at different ages: The English displacement effect and other findings. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 19, 57 - 70.
Peng, F. & von Raffler-Engel, W. (Eds.). (1978). Language Acquisition and Developmental Kinesics. Bunka Hyoron Publishing Company.
Pine, J. (1995). Variation in vocabulary development as a function of birth order. Child Development, 66 (1), 272 - 281.
Rovee-Collier, C. (1995). Time windows in cognitive development. Developmental Psychology, 31 (2), 147 - 169.
Wells, G. (1981). Learning through interaction. (73-115). Cambridge University Press.
Email me: kim@bradford-watts.com |
|
|
