L1 AND L2 ANALYSIS WITH INSTRUCTOR IMPLICATIONS

A Comparative Contrastive Analysis of L1 and L2 Acquisition and Generalizations about ASL

Acquisition as a Second Language across Grades K-16 with ASL instructor implications
Linda Bond
University of Northern Colorado

L1 AND L2 ANALYSIS WITH INSTRUCTOR IMPLICATIONS

Abstract
Insights gained from comparison and contrast of L1 and L2 language acquisition provide
implications for ASL instruction for primary through post-secondary educators.

L1 AND L2 ANALYSIS WITH INSTRUCTOR IMPLICATIONS

A Comparative Contrastive Analysis of L1 and L2 Acquisition and Generalizations about ASL

Acquisition as a Second Language across Grades K-16 with ASL instructor implications
Introduction
L1 and L2 acquisition share some properties but are differentiated by others. Exploration
of these properties of L1 and L2 acquisition yields implications for effective ASL instruction.
Similarities between L1 and L2 acquisition
Brown (1973) argued that L1 acquisition follows a predictable and nearly invariant
order (p. 100). Ellis (1994) proposed that language acquisition (both L1 and L2) follows
developmental stages of a silent period (listening and learning in silence), formulaic speech
(learned repeatable expressions) and structural and semantic simplification (grammatical
functors and content word omissions). Similarly, Krashens (1982) Natural Order Hypothesis
proposed a predictable order to acquiring language rules.
Both L1 and L2 have a critical period in which language learning is the easiest.
Lenneberg (1967) proposed that language acquisition between the ages of two and twelve is
partially a function of a biologically determined critical period. Kuhl (2010) noted that the best
time to learn a language is between infancy and seven years of age. Nevertheless, her work
suggests that there are limits to the effect of the critical period, that is, that postpubescent
individuals can still learn some aspects of language as effectively as young children (Wang &
Kuhl, 2003). Many theorists now accept that both L1 and L2 learners show evidence of
Chomskys (1968) Universal Grammar in their path to language acquisition.
The notion of a zone of proximal development is useful in understanding both L1 and L2
language acquisition (Vygotsky, 1987). This theory suggests that as language learners are guided

L1 AND L2 ANALYSIS WITH INSTRUCTOR IMPLICATIONS

by others, they can develop scaffolding in the region between what they can accomplish alone
and what they can accomplish with guidance (Gibbons, 2002).
Salient Differences between L1 and L2 Acquisition
Cook (2010) outlines several differences between L1 and L2 language acquisition.
Whereas L1 learners generally develop mastery of the language, L2 learners vary greatly in their
level of success. L2 learners experience fossilization in which learning is essentially stopped at
some level of interlanguage development, but L1 learners do not experience fossilization. In
many cases, L2 learners are older and more mature than L1 learners. Because, unlike L2
learners, L1 learners develop their language in an intensive interaction setting as they go through
daily life with their caregivers, motivation is not a critical element in L1 development. In
contrast, motivation is central to L2 development (Dornyei, 2006) and can be greatly influenced
because affective states can prevent learners from acquiring comprehensible input which is
critical to acquisition (e.g., natural unconscious learning that mimics first language acquisition),
but not to more formal classroom learning (Krashen, 1982). L1 learners seem to easily acquire
thousands of words in their first language. However, L2 learners learn in a classroom, out of
context, and are exposed to far fewer words than L1 learners (Lightbown & Spada, 2013).
Generalizations about ASL acquisition as a second language across grades K-16 and ASL
instructor implications
Awareness of a critical period for language acquisition should drive curriculum designers
and teachers to make the most of childhood for teaching ASL. Although academic studies
suggesting a critical period were not completed in ASL, it is highly probable that at least
introducing children to ASL may encourage and assist learning. Nevertheless, recent work
suggests that all is not lost if we begin ASL instruction in adulthood because some evidence

L1 AND L2 ANALYSIS WITH INSTRUCTOR IMPLICATIONS

suggests that there are elements of language learning at which older teens and adults can still
excel (Wang & Kuhl, 2003).
Recognizing Elliss (1994) developmental stages may lead ASL instructors to (1) refrain
from demanding that students sign long before they are ready during their silent period, (2) teach
useful formulaic expressions early in the learning experience, so students can more quickly and
comfortably interact in the Deaf community, and (3) focus on helping students overcome
omissions during their structural and semantic simplification stage.
The notion of a specific order in which language features are acquired should guide
curriculum development and inform instructor choices as to how (i.e., in what order) to approach
certain aspects of ASL. Experimentation may reveal any natural order of acquisition in ASL.
Moreover, the distinction between formal learning and acquisition (see Krashen, 1982) suggests
that students of all ages would benefit from meaningful interaction with a native signing
population in order to acquire ASL knowledge and skills. Although it appears that Acculturation
Theory which drives a concern for closeness to a native language using population has
received limited empirical support, it may have its impact through indirect means (see Barjesteh
& Vaseghi, 2012). This would be consistent with other work on motivation and impact
(Krashen, 1982; Dornyei, 2006).
Differences between L1 and L2 acquisition suggest several insights for teachers of ASL.
For L2 learners of ASL who have already developed first language reading and writing
capabilities, the first language can be used for support reading, addressing student questions, and
reflecting on elements of ASL. Whereas an L1 is learned through extensive interaction with
caregivers, ASL instruction is generally constrained to the classroom and assigned experiences.

L1 AND L2 ANALYSIS WITH INSTRUCTOR IMPLICATIONS

Thus, the ASL instructor must be selective and choose high-impact learning experiences and
activities.
Because fossilization occurs in L2 learning, ASL instructors must be aware of transitory
interlanguage development phases that can become habitual. Therefore, ASL instructors may
choose more in-class activities and flipped classroom experiences so they can see the language
production of their students and intervene in cases where fossilization is occurring.
Because emotions can influence learning directly (Krashen, 1982) and motivation is a
key to L2 learning success (Dornyei, 2006), ASL instructors should seek to create a nonthreatening learning environment in which learner self-esteem is carefully guarded. This implies
special care with adult learners who may perceive typical instructional methods as judgmental or
demeaning. ASL instructors can enhance motivation by establishing a rapport by laughing and
talking with students about their lives and their interests, attending student study groups, telling
relevant personal stories and positive experiences, and using humorous memes. These are all
tools that can help put students at ease, connect them to the instructor and encourage them in
their language learning journeys.
Finally, ASL instructors must accept the fact that L2 learners come with a variety of
individual differences that shape how they learn. Teachers must provide multiple methods and
experiences so they can enable the success of students with a wide variety of backgrounds and
approaches to learning.
Conclusion
By attending to a few key similarities and differences between L1 and L2 acquisition,
ASL instructors can design more effective learning experiences that aid their students in
developing ASL knowledge and skills.

L1 AND L2 ANALYSIS WITH INSTRUCTOR IMPLICATIONS

References
Barjesteh, H., & Vaseghi, R. (2012). Acculturation model for L2 acquisition: Review and
evaluation. Advances in Asian Social Science, 2(4), 579-584.
Brown, R. (1973). Development of the first language in the human species. American
Psychologist, 28(2), 97-106.
Chomsky, N. (1968). Language and mind. New York: Harcourt, Brace & Jovanovich.
Cook, V. J. (2010). The relationship between first and second language acquisition revisited. The
Continuum companion to second language acquisition, 137-157.
Dornyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second
language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford, England: Oxford University
Press.
Gibbons, P. (2002). Scaffolding language, scaffolding learning: Teaching second language
learners in the mainstream classroom. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Publishing.
Krashen, S. D. (1982). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford,
England: Oxford University Press.
Kuhl, P. (2010, October). The linguistic genius of babies [Video file]. Retrieved
from http://www.ted.com/talks/patricia_kuhl_the_linguistic_genius_of_babies
Lenneberg, E. (1967). Biological foundations of language. New York City, NY: John Wiley &
Sons, Inc.
Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (2013). How languages are learned (4th ed.). Oxford, England:
Oxford University Press.

L1 AND L2 ANALYSIS WITH INSTRUCTOR IMPLICATIONS

Vygotsky, L. (1987). Zone of proximal development. Mind in society: The development of higher
psychological processes, 5291.
Wang, Y., & Kuhl, P. K. (2003). Evaluating the critical period hypothesis: perceptual learning
of Mandarin tones in American adults and American children at 6, 10 and 14 years of
age. In Poster Presented at the 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (pp.
1537-1540).