Is second language acquisition like first language acquisition?

Discuss this question based on the findings of empirical studies into first and second language acquisition.

The main aim of my essay entitled Is SLA like FLA? Discuss this question based on the findings of empirical studies into first and second language acquisition will be to answer the proposed question in terms of the empirical studies that have examined similarities

between first and second language acquisition. A brief overview of some differences between first and second language acquisition will be given. The term first language refers to the first language that a child learns. Other terms used for the first language are mother tongue, primary and native language. The term second language (L2) is used to describe any non-native language learned after the learning of an L1 or native language; also it refers to any language regardless of whether it is the second, third, fourth or even fifth language. Second language acquisition (SLA) refers to the process of learning a non-native language after the learning of the native language (Gass and Selinker, 2008:7). The development sequence can give us the first insight into the similarity between first and second language acquisition. Ellis (1991, as cited in Ipek, 2009:155-156) studied the development sequence and has proposed three stages of development: the silent period, formulaic speech, and structural and semantic simplification. He views the silent period as a period of listening of a language that first language learners are exposed to; formulaic speech is thought as expressions which are considered to be wholes that cant be analyzed and are used in particular situations (Ellis,1991, as cited in Ipek, 2009:155-156). The last stage, structural and semantic simplification, the first is defined as omitting grammatical factors such as articles and auxiliary verb, while the later is defined as omitting content words such as nouns and verbs (Ellis,1991, as cited in Ipek, 2009:156). I agree with Ipek who concludes that from these three stages we can see that the L1 and the L2 learners are similar because both L1 and L2 learners have similar development stages. The only difference is in the silent period where the L2 learners are urged to skip it (Ipek, 2009:156). In addition to the developmental sequence, Ipek (2009:156) proposes other aspects in which similarity can be found between first and second language acquisition. SLA is similar to FLA, among others, in input and in the acquisition order. Input is vital to first language acquisition. Ipek agrees with Chomsky (1965,

Ellis, 1994; McLaughlin, 1991 as cited in Ipek, 2009:157) who states that input is vital for first language acquisition but also he finds that input alone can not be a sufficient source because it contains ungrammaticalities and disfluencies. This means that if children rely only on input they would not be able to determine what is grammatical and what is not grammatical. Chomsky points out that children must have an inner knowledge that helps them to overcome the deficiencies of input because input alone cant provide the necessary information that they need to discover the rules of the L1 (1965, Ellis, 1994; McLaughlin, 1991 as cited in Ipek, 2009:157). Ipek believes that these arguments for the inadequacy of input in the first language acquisition can also be found in the second language acquisition (Ipek, 2009:157). The similarity between FLA and SLA can also be seen in the order of acquisition. Brown selected a set of 14 most frequently used English morphemes and studied the order of acquisition of these morphemes in three English-speaking children from MLU stages through II to V (Brown, 1973, as cited in James and Khan, 1982:381). The results of the study have shown that the order of acquisition of these morphemes was similar in all three children (Lee, 2005)1. Furthermore, Corder states:The L2 Morpheme Order Studies have suggested that second language learners errors might be essentially similar to those committed by children learning first language (Corder, 1967, as cited in Meisel, 2011:64). Dulay and Burt (1974, as cited in Lee, 2005) conducted a cross-sectional study in which they examined the order of acquisition of 11 English morphemes in native Chinese- and Spanish-speaking children learning English in an environment that included native speakers of English. The results have shown that both Spanish and Chinese children acquired the 11 morphemes in the same way. From this we can come to a conclusion that in the first and second language acquisition there is a similar pattern according to the order of acquisition of morphemes (Dulay and Burt, 1974, as cited in Lee, 2005). However, it is worth mentioning that some researchers have found that the order of acquisition varies
1

Article taken from internet source: http://jeas.co.kr/sub/cnt.asp?num=38&volnum=4, taken 10.2.2012., no page numbering

somewhat according to the learners first language. Schmidt (1983, as cited in Ellis, 1997:6) conducted longitudinal study of an adult Japanese learner of English named Wes over a period of 3 years (as cited in Kasper and Schmidt, 1996:151-152). Without formal instruction and with only rudimentary classroom learning in Japan, Wes performed plural-s very poorly, much less accurately than irregular past ( Schmidt, 1983, as cited in Ellis, 1997:7). In other words, Wes did not follow the natural order. It has been argued that second language learning is built completely upon transfer from the first language and cannot tell us anything more general about language learning (Bever, Weksel, 1965, as cited in Ervin-Tripp, 1974:112). Ervin-Tripp (1974:113) proposes that if second language learning relies on skills and processes similar to the ones from first language acquisition, the answer to the question Is there a change in the learning rate or process with age? may be generalizable to first language acquisition and we will be able to manipulate the functional, social and structural circumstances in which learning occurs. Ervin-Tripps empirical study consisted of thirty-one participants, children aged 4 to 9. The participants were all Englishspeaking children who went to a school where French was an instructional medium. They have not been exposed to French for more than nine months. The method used to test the participants was a comprehension test consisting of 24 sentences with passives, actives, reversed anomalous passives, indirect objects and telegraphic sentences in which the children acted out the situation with dolls or animals (Ervin-Tripp, 1974:113). In other words, the tests involved the comprehension of morphology and syntax. The first question Ervin-Tripp (1974:126) wanted to answer was whether the process of second language acquisition looks like the first. The results of the study have shown that the functions of early sentences, as well as their forms, their reliance on short term memory, semantic redundancy, the overgeneralization of lexical forms and the use of simple order strategy

are similar to processes in first language acquisition. Ervin-Tripp came to the conclusion that first and second language learning is similar in natural situations. The results regarding the second question Is there a change in the learning rate or process with age? have shown that, with regard to every aspect tested, older children (in the age range of 4 to 9) showed an advantage over the younger children in terms of the rate of acquisition and learned faster than younger children (Ervin-Tripp, 1974:126). The research conducted by Ervin-Tripp, among others, has shown that the fact that an L2 learner builds on previously acquired concepts and it is not what differentiates L2 learning from L1 learning (Firth, 1975). Another similarity found between first and second language acquisition can be found in terms of linguistic universals and markedness. The findings in these areas show that unmarked features are learned easier and faster than marked rules in both first and second language (Ipek, 2009:156-157). Despite all the evidence presented above, in favor of the claim that first and second language acquisition are similar, it is worth mentioning that there are some differences that distinguish first and second language learning. An important difference between children learning their first language and adults learning a second language is the contextual support for learning. It is argued that the contexts for L1 acquisition cannot be duplicated in the L2 learning (Firth,1975:137). However, studies conducted by Gardner and Lambert (1972, as cited in Firth, 1975:137) and H. Douglas Brown (1973, as cited in Firth, 1975:137) have shown that if the settings in which the learning of the L2 takes place offer instances of meaningful communication then the rate and the quality of L2 learning will be greater than L1 acquisition (Firth,1975:137). Pronunciation is another area in which first and second language learning might differ. A child that learns his native language acquires the pronunciation of the regional and social dialect to which he is exposed. This is rarely the case when the adult learns a second

language. Studies have shown that some extralinguistic and social factors, such as ability and personality, might play a certain role in the ultimate attainment of pronunciation (Firth, 1975:137). From this paper we can conclude that the SLA is similar to FLA in many aspects However, there are a lot of differences between SLA and FLA which suggests that they are not nearly similar as we think. The question of SLA and FLA similarity needs additional research because the present evidence does not give us a clear answer to which extent is SLA similar to FLA, only speculations to the claim.

Word count: 1525 Literature: Bever T, and W. Weksel (1965), On the acquisition of syntax: a critique of contextual generalization, Psychological review, 72, 467-482 Brown Douglas, H. (1973). Affective variables in second language acquisition, Language learning, 23, 231-243. Chomsky, N (1965), Aspects of the theory of syntax , Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press Corder, S.P. (1967), The significance of learners errors, International Review of Applied Linguistics, 5, 161-170 Dulay, H.C. and Burt, M.K. (1974), Natural sequences in child second language acquisition, Language learning, 24, 37-53

Ellis, R. (1994), The study of second language acquisition, China: Oxford University Press Ellis, R. (1997.), Second language Acquisition, New York: Oxford University Press Ervin-Trip, S. M. (1974), Is second language learning like the First?, TESOL Quarterly, 8, 111-127. Firth, M.B. (1975), A comparison of first and second language learning, M cGill Journal of Education, 2, 131-140 Gardner, R. and Lambart W. (1972), Attitudes and motivation in second language learning, Rowle, Mass: Newbury House Gass, S. M. and Selinker, L. (2008.), Second language acquisition: An introductory course, New York and London, Routledge Taylor and Francis Group Ipek, H. (2009), Comparing and contrasting first and second language acquisition: Implications for language teachers, English language Teaching, 2, 155-163. James S. L. and Khan, H. L. (1982), Grammatical morpheme acquisition: An approximately invariant order, Journal of Psycholinguistic research, 11, 381-388 Kasper G., and Schmidt R. (1996), Development issues in interlanguage pragmatics, SSLA, 18, 149-169 Lee, S. A. (2005), The role of the L2 in the Morpheme order studies, Journal of English and American studies, 4 McLaughlin, B. (1991), Theories of second language learning, Great Britain: Arnold Meisel, J. M. (2011), First and second language acquisition: Parallels and differences, USA: Cambridge University Press Schimdt, R. (1983), Interaction acculturation and the acquisition of communicative House competence. In N. Wolfson and E. Judd( Eds.), Sociolinguistics and second language acquisition, Rowley. MA: Newburry