Differences between First Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning

Differentiating Language learning from language acquisition is considered as one of the many linguistic
phenomena that emerged in the 20th century. The need for a systematic study of how languages are learned
was developed as part of the cultural and communication expansion the world has witnessed (Ellis !!"#
p.$%.
&irst Language acquisition is the natural process in which children su'consciously possess and develop the
linguistic (nowledge of the setting they live in. )n contrast# *econd language learning ta(es place where the
target language is the language spo(en in the language community that differs from the mother tongue +first
language, and distinguished from &oreign language learning in which the language is a'sent from the
setting of that community (De -ot# Lowie# and .erspoor 200/# p."%
0any studies addressed the distinction 'etween L (&irst language% acquisition and L2 (*econd language%
learning. The very first thing to address is the natural process in which L learners acquire their language
(nowledge. L2 learning is more of a conscious one.
1ompared to L learning# L2 learners develop this (nowledge 'y utilising conscious and cognitive efforts.
De -ot# Lowie# and .erspoor (200/# p."% argue that 2rashen and Terrel tried to draw a line 'etween second
language acquisition and learning 'y stating that acquisition is a su'conscious process and very similar to
the one that children develop in their first language.
3ule (!4/# p.5$% defines acquisition to 'e 67the gradual development of a'ility in a language 'y using it
naturally in communicative situations with others who (now the language8. 9e contrasts it with learning: 6a
more conscious process of accumulating (nowledge of the features# such as voca'ulary and grammar# of a
language# typically in an institutional setting8.
The natural su'conscious or conscious learning factor is highly and vitally lin(ed and attached to the
linguistic setting. This leads to another ma;or distinction 'etween L and L2 learners which is exposure. The
L acquisition# as defined earlier# ta(es place in a setting where the acquired language is the language
spo(en 'y parents and or caregiver. The acquirer is in a constant exposure to this language. *econd language
learners have lesser contact with the language# and may'e as few as hours per wee( in the case of foreign
language learners (3ule# !4/# p.5$%.
There are also some individual differences that play part in this distinction and they fall in two groups. &irst#
physical differences and age: 1hildren who are acquiring their first language are still developing their speech
organs. This explains the gradual and natural development of sound production accompanied with the 'rain
development. L2 learners8 competence is also affected 'y age<related physical conditions that hinder their
learning. 3ule (!4/# p.=/% argues that the readiness of the human mind to receive and learn a new
language is most in childhood# which is called the critical period. Ellis (!!/# p.5"% descri'es the critical
period that in which 67language acquisition is easy and complete (i.e. native<spea(er a'ility is
achieved%8.
*econd# cognitive and psychological differences: > num'er of cognitive and psychological learning 'arriers
that separate L2 learners from the L acquirers. ?ecent studies show that motivation plays a great role in
attaining language proficiency. 1oo( (2004# p.$5% states that 'igger motivation leads to 'etter performance
in L2. >ccording to 1oo(# the motivation for learning falls in two types: )ntegrative 67 reflects whether the
student identifies with the target culture and people in some sense8@ and instrumental one in which learning
ta(es place for a career or other practical reason (1oo( (2004# p.$5<$"%. Ellis (!!/# p."/% even adds two
more types of motivation: ?esultative motivation that ta(es place when learning controls the motivation# and
an intrinsic motivation in which it involves the activation# arousal# and maintenance of the learning
curiosity.
There are other cognitive factors that play a role in determining learner8s effort and competence in the
second language learning. Those factors are highly related to aptitude which is +7 natural a'ility for
learning an L2A (Ellis# !!/# p."$%
http:BB;0!w.comBwpBCpD$"
First Language Acquisition
Theres a lot missing from the speech of a typical two-year-old. This in itself is of no great interest--after all,
there are lots of other things that two-year-olds aren't that good at. What makes the two-year-old more
interesting to the linguist is that there are striking regularities in what gets missed out where...
(1olin Ehillips !!/# 0)T%
Fne of the first things that should stri(e any half o'servant parent is the speed and apparent accuracy in
which a child proceeds to learn his or her own language. This remar(a'ly rapid development seems to fly in
the face of many (nown facts a'out the nature of languageGso much so that it has 'ecome widely accepted
in the scientific community to thin( of language and its acquisition as one of many utterly unexplaina'le
mysteries that 'eset us in our daily lives. Even the cleverest of scientists today do not (now where to 'egin
with trying to unravel the range of complexities that all of language 'rings. Even so# the child moves ever
onward# seemingly with little deference to this so<called mystery and proceeds with little effort to crac( the
sacred code nonetheless.
9ow could this 'eC &irstly# parents provide very little in the way of language instruction to the childG
contrary to what might 'e 'elieved# parents do not teach their children to spea(. 0ost parents wouldn8t even
have the means in which to explain language overtly to a child even if they wanted%. )n fact# parents spend
the ma;ority of time correcting falsehoods (those little white lies% rather than correcting erroneous grammars.
Fn the mere face of it# one would thin( children grow<up 'eing little lawyers see(ing out truths rather than
little linguists see(ing out correct hypotheses to their language. Than( Hod# the latter indeed prevails.
1hildren will continue to lie in order to ta(e<on an advantage# while# without exception# 'y<and<'y acquiring
their mother language. -y the time a child enters pre<school# she has more<or<less mastered much of her
target language.
9owever# in light of these remar(a'le achievements# children do seem to go through varying degrees of
stages along the way to their full mastery. )t is this notion of stages of acquisition that has interested the
developmental linguists most.
*tage<: Examples of early multi<word speech
Him do it. What daddy doing? Me want car. Where go? esterday ! go.
That "ohn car. Her falled me down. Me no like eat. Why them go there?
)t is a fact that children do not produce adult<li(e utterances from the very 'eginning of their multi<word
speech. >nd so much of the de'ate ongoing in child first language acquisition has 'een devoted to the nature
and extent of 6what gets missed out where8 in regards to their early grammatical systems. Theory internal
measures have 'een spawned every which way in effort to account for the lac( of apparent adult<li(e
language in young children. Theories a'ound. Despite some evidence that would seem to point to the
contrary# more ro'ust syntactic theories from the outset continue to view the very young child as
maintaining an operative level of language closely 'ound to a'stract (nowledge of grammatical categories
(Ein(er !4=# 9yams !45# ?adford !!0# Iexler !!5# and ?adford J Halasso !!4%. &or instance# Ein(er
(!!5% has descri'ed early language production (6'ottom<up8% in terms of a 6first order8 (general nativist%
cognitive account# suggesting a potential 'ottlenec( effect which attri'utes a limited high<scope memory to
account for the child8s truncated syntax of TenseB>greement and Transitive errors (e.g. Her want%# and over<
application of Tense errors (e.g. #oes it rolls?%. )n this sense# it is 'elieved that high<scope memory serves as
a (ind of scaffolding for formal a'straction.
Fne possi'le interpretation of this would 'e to suggest that a rule<'ased a'straction process (syntax%
somehow has evolved out of a 'iological need to handle and compute the vast and newfound
quantitativeBqualitative store of linguistic material presently endowed to humans due to this increase in
memory: i.e.# high<scope memory spawns varia'le a'straction. There is no question that a purely
associative<'ased model of lexical storage# with the entire range of inflections 'eing stored as whole lexical<
chun(s# would 'urden the memory process in such a way that it would squeeKe out any remaining
computational space required for more convoluted syntactic operations (such as movement and the
realiKation of formal functional features%.
?adford (!!0%# on the other hand# has maintained a 6second order8 (special nativist% maturational account
affecting syntactic complexity in order to explain the same lac( of adult<li(e speech. )n this sense# memory
has nothing whatsoever to do with the emergence of formal syntax (or lac( thereof% and a more special
nativist stanceGspecial in the sense that we are now operating on a 6top<down8 scenarioGis pursued.
Lotwithstanding peripheral differences regarding the inherent causes of such errors# it should 'e noted that
these two long standing nativist positions share a more common 'ond in that they were reactions to much of
what was 'ad coming on the heels of wor( done in the !"0sGtheories which sought not only to account for
such errors on purely semantic grounds# 'ut# li(ewise# seemingly to demote the child8s entire early
grammatical apparatus to a mere level of associative<style cognitive learning (e.g.# -loom !"/# -raine
!"5# and to some extent -owerman (!"$% among others%.
>lthough it is true that a certain amount of Ein(er8s wor( in this general context continues to 6'ootstrap8
early grammars to semantics# the steering away from potential non<nativistic associative learning<'ased
accounts to proper syntactic<'ased accounts was viewed 'y many to 'e a timely paradigm shift# acting as a
safeguard against what might 'e construed as 6'ad<science8 'ehaviorism (of the purely semantic (ind%. This
shift ad;usted toward a more accurate nativist stance# swinging the Elato vs. >ristotle de'ate 'ac( to Elato8s
court# at least of the time 'eing (as witnessed in 1homs(y8s entitled 'oo( 61artesian Linguistics8%Ga move
(eeping in line with what was then coming down the pi(e in 1homs(yan linguistics. Fne thing# however#
that seems to have caught the imagination of developmental linguists in recent years has 'een to question
again the actual infrastructure of the child 'rain that produces the sort of immature grammar: namely# a
re;uvenation has reappeared in the literature circumscri'ing new understanding of age<old questions dealing
with the computational structure of the mind (see The Dual 0echanism 0odel%.
Second Language Learning
0uch of *econd Language Learning centers around issues of the nature of learna'ility. Ihereas it is
understood that first language acquisition is somewhat a mystery and relies mostly on innate universal
principles of constraints and assumptions# second language learning seems to rely more on cognitive
mechanism in order to fashion general pro'lem solving learning strategies to cope with the material. This
difference 'etween &irst Language 6>cquisition8 vs. *econd Language 6Learning8 has 'een recently
articulated as a &undamental Difference 9ypothesis.
)t goes without saying that children naturally acquire their first language. >dults (post<critical period% do not
naturally acquire their second language# as a num'er of fundamental differences appear in their rationale
towards learning. >ttempts to ;uxtapose what we do (now a'out first language development# parameter
settings# syntactic<categorical development (Lexical vs. &unctional%# etc. and comparing and contrasting
these to second language have spawned new theoretical models# approaches and theories which see( to
address new issues in TE*L pedagogy.
http:BBwww.csun.eduBMgalassoBlang.htm
Crucial differences between L1 and L2 acquisition [Robert O'Neill A!ril 1""#$
> great deal of what is called N1ommunicative Language TeachingN is 'ased on what is essentially a NnativistN
view of second language (L2% acquisition. > NnativistN view assumes O consciously or unconsciously O that
somehow L2 learning can and should 'e li(e learning our native language (L%. This is wishful thin(ing and
is 'ased on a profound misconception a'out the nature of L2 learning < ;ust as it is a misconception a'out
how L acquisition occurs. The 'est way to explore the differences 'etween the two processes is to view
them side<'y<side O in parallel# as 'elow.
L1 AC%&'S'('ON
. L acquisition is genetically triggered at the most critical stage of the childNs cognitive development.
2. The NengineN of language O its syntactic system O is Ninformationally encapsulatedN O which means that
children are not even aware of developing a complex# rule<governed# hierarchical system. 0ost L
spea(ers do not even realise this is what they are using.
$. The L is typically acquired at the crucial period of cognitive development@ pre<pu'erty# when L
and other crucial life<s(ills are also acquired or learned.
=. 1hildren never resist L acquisition# any more than they resist learning to wal(.
/. Hiven even minimal NinputN during critical pre<pu'escent development# all humans acquire the L of
the society or social group they are 'orn into as a natural and essential part of their lives. Even 'rain<
damaged andBor retarded children usually acquire the full grammatical code of the language of their
society or social group.
5. )n short# L acquisition is an essential# 'iologicallyOdriven process. )t is part of every individualNs
evolutionary history and development in the most critical stage of that individualNs acquisition of
essential life<s(ills.
L2 L)ARN'N*
. L2 learning is not genetically triggered in any way unless the child grows up 'i<lingually (in which
case# it is not really L2 learning at all%.
2. The syntax of the L2 is not acquired unconsciously# or at least not in the way L syntax is acquired.
&ew L2 learners develop the same degree of unconscious# rule<governed insight into and use of the
L2 which they demonstrate with the L.
$. The L2 is not learned as part of the learnerNs general cognitive development. )t is not an essential life<
s(ill in the same way that the L is.
=. There is often great conscious or unconscious resistance to L2 learning.
/. 0any highly intelligent individuals with impressive learning s(ills often have great pro'lems
learning an L2. 0any L2 learners NfossiliseN at some stage# so that even if they use the L2 regularly#
and are constantly exposed to input in it# they fail to develop full grammatical or NgenerativeN
competence.
5. L2 learning is not a 'iologically<driven process. )t is not an essential aspect of an individualNs general
development# especially when the L2 is simply another su';ect on an already overloaded school
curriculum or something that has to 'e underta(en 'y people with 'usy lives and heavy wor(<loads.
So+e Conclusions ' ,ersonall- .a/e Drawn Fro+ t0e Foregoing
. *peech<act theory# upon which so much of so<called N1ommunicative Language TeachingN (1LT% is
'ased# has some importance and should not 'e ignored. 3et the engine of generative competence O
syntax O is ;ust as important. )n fact# ) would argue that it is even more so# ;ust as ) would argue that
it is as wrong to ignore the teaching andBor study of syntax as it is to ignore the pragmatic acts of
everyday language<use which are the focus of speech<act theory. )n other words# the question is not
N)s syntax importantN 'ut N9ow O if at all O can it 'e taught and learned in the study of any L2CN
2. ) 'elieve that texts O typical# naturalistic ('ut not NauthenticN% instances of every<day language use O
should 'e the central vehicle of my own teaching. Teaching and learning with and through texts
ma(es it possi'le to study 'oth the generative and pragmatic domains of language and also favours
NunconsciousN learning of language as text < language in context.
$. >s important as systematic and regular study of the underlying generative system is# it is even more
important to maintain the interest of learners and to give them a certain degree of confidence that
they can and will learn the L2 to a reasona'le degree of accuracy and fluency. Texts also ma(e this
possi'le# especially if they have Nnarrative<driveN O that is# if they arouse the interest of learners in
what is going to happen next and what may have happened 'efore the time<focus of the text.
=. Pust as all good Nnative<spea(erN texts are directed at particular native<spea(ers and written# spo(en
and edited with a clear idea of what they are li(ely to understand and 'e interested in# so all good
Nnon<nativeN texts should 'e created with the same clear understanding of what those non<native
spea(ers are li(ely to understand and 'e interested in. *uch texts may 'e 'ased to some degree on
NauthenticN texts# 'ut once any text is adapted or changed in some way# it is no longer NauthenticN.
>uthenticity for its own sa(e is an empty and irrelevant fetish.
/. )t is essential for the text to 'e Naccessi'leN< so that learners do not spend too much time struggling
simply to ma(e sense of the text and all the words or structures they do not (now. )n real<life with
our own language# we usually Nswitch offN when we encounter such texts. Typical instances of
NauthenticN speech acts and typical Nauthentic texts ta(en from newspapers and other sources are often
incomprehensi'le even to native<spea(ers when the 'ac(ground context is no longer Nhere and nowN.
5. Texts for classroom use need to 'e fairly short# so that there can 'e time in the lesson for various
activities and exercises that encourage learners to use the language of the text and to modify it for
their own purposes or the purposes of the lesson. 0ost typical newspaper articles# even from sources
li(es NLewswee(N# are simply too long.
". The text is there not ;ust to 'e read 'ut to generate language use 'y the class# and to lead to further
study. *o it will almost always 'e adapted for these purposes and thus cease to 'e NauthenticN.
>uthentic materials O in the narrow sense of the word are often 'oring and hardly ever as relevant or
as useful as texts that have 'een s(ilfully<written for specific didactic aims. Ff course# such texts are
often 'ased on NauthenticN materials. They should reflect different types of such texts ;ust as they
should 'e naturalistic and interesting.
4. The argument that texts should 'e NauthenticN is as superficial and misconceived as the 'elief that L2
learning can and should 'e li(e L learning. >ll genuine NauthenticN texts in the real world are created
with definite purposes and for clearly perceived and defined audiences. Texts created or designed for
classroom purposes must have their own purposes and their own clearly defined audiences# as well.
http:BBwww.tedpower.co.u(Besl0=2.html