This paper reflects the research and thoughts of a student at the time the paper was written for

a course at Bryn Mawr College. Like other materials on Serendip, it is not intended to be "authoritative" but rather to help others further develop their own explorations. Web links were active as of the time the paper was posted but are not updated. Contribute Thoughts | Search Serendip for Other Papers | Serendip Home Page Biology 103 2003 Second Paper On Serendip

First and Second Language Acquisition

Margaret Tucker
In our everyday lives, the origin of our ability to communicate is usually not often taken into consideration. One doesn't think about how every person has, or rather had at one time, an innate ability to learn a language to total fluency without a conscious effort a feat that is seen by the scientific community "as one of the many utterly unexplainable mysteries that beset us in our daily lives" (3).. Other such mysteries include our body's ability to pump blood and take in oxygen constantly seemingly without thought, and a new mother's ability to unconsciously raise her body temperature when her infant is placed on her chest. But a child's first language acquisition is different from these phenomena; different because it cannot be repeated. No matter how many languages are learned later in life, the rapidity and accuracy of the first acquisition can simply not be repeated. This mystery is most definitely why first language acquisition, and subsequently second language acquisition, is such a highly researched topic. On the surface one would look at child first language acquisition and adult second language acquisition and see similarities. In each case the learner first learns how to make basic sounds, then words, phrases and sentences; and as this learning continues the sentences become more and more complex. However, when one looks at the outcomes of these two types of acquisition, the differences are dramatic. The child's ability to communicate in the target language far surpasses that of the adult. In this paper differences in these two processes that most always produce such different outcomes will be explored. Before this exploration begins, however, I would like to state that I am looking at child first language acquisition and adult second language acquisition because they both seem most relevant to our lives right now as college students who have most definitely mastered our first language at a young age, and are mostly likely attempting to master our second as adults. One could also look at situations where only one variable is changes (e.g. child first vs. child second or child second vs. adult second) but these comparisons are not represented in this paper. The first area of difference between first (L1) and second (L2) language learning is input specifically the quality and quantity of input. It is the idea of the "connectionist model that

implies... (that the) language learning process depends on the input frequency and regularity" (5).. It is here where one finds the greatest difference between L1 and L2 acquisition. The quantity of exposure to a target language a child gets is immense compared to the amount an adult receives. A child hears the language all day everyday, whereas an adult learner may only hear the target language in the classroom which could be as little as three hours a week. Even if one looks at an adult in a total submersion situation the quantity is still less because the amount of one on one interaction that a child gets for example with a parent or other caregiver is still much greater then the adult is receiving. This idea of one on one interaction versus a class room setting (where an instructor could be speaking to up to twenty, or more students) also ties in with the idea of quality. It is also much easier for a parent or caregiver to engage the child in what he or she is learning. It is hard, however, for a teacher to make the topic being learned relevant to the students' lives. This can lead to a lack of concentration, and a lack of motivation something that will be visited later. The next great and obvious difference between L1 and L2 learning is age. A large part of this train of thought is the idea of a "critical period, or the "time after which successful language learning cannot take place" (4).. This time is usually aligned with puberty. This change is significant, "because virtually every learner undergoes significant physical, cognitive, and emotional changes during puberty. There are three main physical changes one undergoes in regards to language acquisition. The first is the presence of muscular plasticity. A child's plasticity goes away at about the age of five. After this age it is very hard for a learner to fully master pronunciation of a second language. The second change is one's memorization capabilities. It is fairly well known that as a person grows older their ability to hold large amount of information reaches its peak fairly early in life, and then begins to decrease. This is seen most dominantly with very old individuals. The third physical change that occurs is more related to neurology. "As a child matures into adulthood, the left hemisphere (which controls the analytical and intellectual functions) becomes more dominant than the right side (which controls the emotional functions)." (2). This idea is called the Lateralization Hypothesis. The significance these specific neurobiological changes have on language learning will be discussed below. The one advantage adults seem to have over children is their cognitive ability. Adults are better able to benefit from learning about structure and grammar. Unfortunately this slight advantage in ability does not help adult second language acquisition in general. In fact this ability almost hinders them in that they analyze too much. Specifically, they cannot leave behind what they know about their first language, which leads to a tendency to overanalyze and to second guess what they are learning. The final area that puberty changes is within the emotional, or affective, realm. Motivation is much affected by emotional change. A child's motivation is simple. In order to communicate and to be a part of family and society the child must master the target language. This motivation is

quite weighty, especially when compared to the motivation that adults have, or rather, must find. Adult motivations usually fall into one of two categories: "integrative motivation (which encourages a learner to acquire the new language in order to become closer to and/or identify themselves with the speakers of the target language) or instrumental motivation (which encourages a learner to acquire proficiency for such practical purposes as becoming a translator, doing further research, and aiming for promotion in their career)" (5).. Either one of these types of motivation must be prevalent for successful acquisition to take place. The final change that takes place, and changes language learning has to do with egocentricity. Children are naturally egocentric. While learning their language they are not afraid to make mistakes, and in general, they do not feel abashed when they are corrected. Also, their thoughts usually do not surpass their language ability. Adults, on the other hand usually suffer form a fairly large amount of language learning anxiety. Adults often "feel frustrated or threatened in the struggle of learning a different language" (5). Mistakes are seen more as failures then as opportunities for growth. "The adult learner may also feel greatly frustrated, for being only able to express their highly complex ideas at a discourse level of an elementary school pupil" (5). These new emotions leave an adult learner in a slightly helpless position, unable to regain the egocentricity of their childhood, which is just on more hindrance in a line of many. Although the desired outcomes of child first language acquisition and adult second language acquisition are exactly the same, the actual outcomes are in reality quite different. Factors such as motivation, quality and quantity of input and a lack of egocentrism, among many other factors, will forever stand in the way of adult second language learning. In conclusion, because of so many varying factors, both the processes and outcomes of child first language acquisition and adult second language acquisition are extremely different, and are only connected by a common goal.

References
1)Comparing and Contrasting First and Second Language Acquisition 2)First and second language acquisition 3)First Language Acquisition 4) Gass, Susan M., Larry Selinker. Second Language Acquisition. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, 2001. 5)Reviewing First and Second Language Acquisition: A Comparisono between Young and Adult Learners

| Biology 103 | Course Forum Area | Biology | Serendip Home | Send us your comments at Serendip

 by Serendip 1994-2011 - Last Modified: Tuesday, 02-Dec-2003 11:28:54 EST

First and second language acquisition

SLA Topics SLA Bibliography Vivian Cook SLL and LT

Differences between L1 and L2 acquisition

Ellis 94 (based on Bley-Vroman 1988) Feature 1. Overall success 2. General failure 3. Variation L1 acquisition children normally achieve perfect L1 mastery success guaranteed L2 (foreign language) acquisition adult L2 learners are unlikely to achieve perfect L2 mastery complete success rare VC's objections

4. Goals

little variation in degree of success or route target language competence

L2 learners vary in overall success and route L2 learners may be content with less than target language competence or more concerned with fluency than accuracy common, plus backsliding (i.e. return to earlier stages of development L2 learners are often unable to form clear grammaticality judgments

All implicitly see 'success' in the sense of what a mono-lingual native speaker does, not an L2 user

5. Fossilisation 6.Intuitions

unknown

And L2 users too have L1 attrition But bilingual children are better at this than monolinguals All depends!

children develop clear intuitions about correctness

7. Instruction 8. Negative evidence

not needed

helpful or necessary

correction not found and not necessary

correction generally helpful or necessary

Recasts are in fact based on L1 acquisition ideas

9. Affective factors

not involved

play a major role determining proficiency

Again measured against monolinguals

Cook, V.J., Long, J., & McDonough, S. (1979), First and second language learning, in G.E. Perren (ed.) The Mother Tongue and Other Languages in Education, CILTR, 7-22 online here 1. The childs language is a system in its own right rather than being a small fragment of the adult system 2. The learning of a first language has many sides and is not simply a matter of learning syntax and vocabulary 3. The use of the first language goes hand in hand with the childs needs and interests 4. Wherever there is a relationship between cognition and language development, language depends on cognition 5. The childs use and learning of language is partly determined by mental capacity 6. There are particular stages of development through which all children progress, even if the rate of progression varies 7. The child learns to adapt its language use to particular situations 8. Adults adapt their speech in systematic ways when talking to children

Extract from V.Cook (2000) 'Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition: One Person with Two Languages' Aronoff & Rees-Miller, Blackwell Handbook of Linguistics What are the similarities between L2 learning and L1 acquisition? A continuing theme has been whether people acquire a second language in the same way as a first. If the L2 stages outlined above are also followed by L1 children, both groups are probably using the same learning process. The L2 sequence for English grammatical morphemes was similar, though not identical, to that found in L1 acquisition by Brown (1972), the greatest differences being the irregular past tense (broke), articles (the), copula and auxiliaries (Dulay, Burt & Krashen, 1982). Other similar sequences of syntactic acquisition have been found in L1 and L2 learning. L2 learners, like L1 learners, start by believing that John is the subject of please in both John is easy to please and John is eager to please and only go on to discover it is the object in John is easy to please after some time

(Cook 1973; dAnglejan & Tucker 1975). L2 learners, like L1 children, at first put negative elements at the beginning of the sentence No the sun shining and then progress to negation within the sentence Thats no ready (Wode 1981). A sub-theme underlying several of the questions discussed here is that L1 acquisition is completely successful, L2 learning is not. Take two representative quotations: Very few L2 learners appear to be fully successful in the way that native speakers are (Towell & Hawkins 1994: p.14); Unfortunately, language mastery is not often the outcome of SLA (Larsen-Freeman & Long 1991: 153). The evidence for this deficiency is held to be the lack of completeness of L2 grammars (Schachter 1988) or the fossilisation in L2 learning where the learner cannot progress beyond some particular stage (Selinker 1992), both familiar facts in some sense. Part of the interest in SLA research is explaining why L2 learners are usually unsuccessful. However, this alleged failure depends upon how success is measured, as we shall see. The answer to the question is far from settled. While there are many similarities between L1 and L2 learning, the variation in situation and other factors also produces many differences. One difficulty is filtering out differences that are accidental rather than inevitable. L1 children mostly acquire language in different settings with different exposure to language than L2 learners and they are at different stages of mental and social maturity (Cook 1969). It may be inherently impossible to compare equivalent L1 and L2 learners. A more precise version of this question asks whether adults still have access to Universal Grammar in the mind. References Cook, V.J. 1969. The analogy between first and second language learning. IRAL VII/3, 207-216, Cook, V.J. 1973. The comparison of language development in native children and foreign adults. IRAL XI/1, 13-28 dAnglejan, A. & Tucker, G.R. 1975. The acquisition of complex English structures by adult learners. Language Learning, XV/2 Larsen-Freeman, D. & Long, M. 1991. An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition Research. Longman, London & New York. Schachter, J. 1988. Second Language Acquisition and its relationship to Universal Grammar. Applied Linguistics 9, 3, 219-235 Wode, H. 1981. Learning a Second Language. Tbingen: Narr

Ted Power English Language Learning and Teaching

HOME - ENGLISH Teaching Sounds Intonation & Stress Spoken v Written Listening Teaching Grammar Function & Form Teaching Vocabulary Concordancers Dictionaries Audiolingualism Cognitive Theory Notional-Functional Communicative Language Acquisition Course Design Testing Objectives Placement Multiple Choice Songs for Phonemes Phoneme Chart Songs for Discussion Language Games Teaching Reading Teaching Writing Self Access Authenticity Teaching Beginners English Links Ted Power Contact Me TEACHING INDEX

Language acquisition and CLT

TEACHING INDEX | NEXT

Crucial differences between L1 and L2 acquisition [Robert O'Neill - April 1998]

A great deal of what is called 'Communicative Language Teaching' is based on what is essentially a 'nativist' view of second language (L2) acquisition. A 'nativist' view assumes consciously or unconsciously that somehow L2 learning can and should be like learning our native language (L1). This is wishful thinking and is based on a profound misconception about the nature of L2 learning - just as it is a misconception about how L1 acquisition occurs. The best way to explore the differences between the two processes is to view them side-by-side in parallel, as below. L1 ACQUISITION
1. L1 acquisition is genetically triggered at the most critical stage of the child's cognitive development. 2. The 'engine' of language its syntactic system is 'informationally encapsulated' which means that children are not even aware of developing a complex, rule-governed, hierarchical system. Most L1 speakers do not even realise this is what they are using. 3. The L1 is typically acquired at the crucial period of cognitive development; pre-puberty, when L1 and other crucial life-skills are also acquired or learned. 4. Children never resist L1 acquisition, any more than they resist learning to walk. 5. Given even minimal 'input' during critical pre-pubescent development, all humans acquire the L1 of the society or social group they are born into as a natural and essential part of their lives. Even brain-damaged and/or retarded children usually acquire the full grammatical code of the language of their society or social group. 6. In short, L1 acquisition is an essential, biologicallydriven process. It is part of every individual's evolutionary history and development in the most critical stage of that individual's acquisition of essential life-skills.

L2 LEARNING
1. L2 learning is not genetically triggered in any way unless the child grows up bi-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 L1 syntax is acquired. Few L2 learners develop the same degree of unconscious, rule-governed insight into and use of the L2 which they demonstrate with the L1. 3. The L2 is not learned as part of the learner's general cognitive development. It is not an essential life-skill in the same way that the L1 is. 4. There is often great conscious or unconscious resistance to L2 learning. 5. Many highly intelligent individuals with impressive learning skills often have great problems learning an L2. Many L2 learners 'fossilise' 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 'generative' competence. 6. L2 learning is not a biologically-driven process. It is not an essential aspect of an individual's general development. especially when the L2 is simply another subject on an already overloaded

school curriculum or something that has to be undertaken by people with busy lives and heavy work-loads.

Some Conclusions I Personally Have Drawn From The Foregoing

1. Speech-act theory, upon which so much of so-called 'Communicative Language Teaching' (CLT) is based, has some importance and should not be ignored. Yet the engine of generative competence syntax is just as important. In fact, I would argue that it is even more so, just as I would argue that it is as wrong to ignore the teaching and/or study of syntax as it is to ignore the pragmatic acts of everyday language-use which are the focus of speech-act theory. In other words, the question is not 'Is syntax important' but 'How if at all can it be taught and learned in the study of any L2?' 2. I believe that texts typical, naturalistic (but not 'authentic') instances of every-day language use should be the central vehicle of my own teaching. Teaching and learning with and through texts makes it possible to study both the generative and pragmatic domains of language and also favours 'unconscious' learning. of language as text - language in context. 3. As 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 reasonable degree of accuracy and fluency. Texts also make this possible, especially if they have 'narrative-drive' that is, if they arouse the interest of learners in what is going to happen next and what may have happened before the time-focus of the text. 4. Just as all good 'native-speaker' texts are directed at particular native-speakers and written, spoken and edited with a clear idea of what they are likely to understand and be interested in, so all good 'non-native' texts should be created with the same clear understanding of what those non-native speakers are likely to understand and be interested in. Such texts may be based to some degree on 'authentic' texts, but once any text is adapted or changed in some way, it is no longer 'authentic'. Authenticity for its own sake is an empty and irrelevant fetish. 5. It is essential for the text to be 'accessible'- so that learners do not spend too much time struggling simply to make sense of the text and all the words or structures they do not know. In real-life with our own language, we usually 'switch off' when we encounter such texts. Typical instances of 'authentic' speech acts and typical 'authentic texts taken from newspapers and other sources are often incomprehensible even to native-speakers when the background context is no longer 'here and now'. 6. Texts for classroom use need to be fairly short, so that there can be 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. Most typical newspaper articles, even from sources likes 'Newsweek', are simply too long. 7. The text is there not just to be read but to generate language use by the class, and to lead to further study. So it will almost always be adapted for these purposes and thus cease to be 'authentic'. Authentic materials in the narrow sense of the word are often boring and hardly ever as relevant or as useful as texts that have been skilfully-written for specific didactic aims. Of course, such texts are often based on 'authentic' materials. They should reflect different types of such texts just as they should be naturalistic and interesting. 8. The argument that texts should be 'authentic' is as superficial and misconceived as the belief that L2 learning can and should be like L1 learning. All genuine 'authentic' 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.

TEACHING INDEX | NEXT

Reviewing First and Second Language Acquisition: A Comparison between Young and Adult Learners

Hiromi Hadley Niigata Studies in Foreign Languages and Cultures, No. 8: 37-48 (December 2002).

1. Introduction
As an English language teacher in Japan, I am often asked by language learners or their parents if there is a way to acquire English just as they acquired Japanese so effortlessly and well when they were little. Especially the parents of young children genuinely hope to give them a head start on their learning, because the parents themselves experienced the helpless feeling of failing to acquire what is now a de facto international language. They seem to know instinctively that the traditional language education they received was not very effective. After so much time and effort spent in class, they found themselves unable to carry out a simple everyday conversation with a native speaker of English.

In order to adequately provide an educated answer to this heartfelt question, this paper will attempt to shed light on some of the important differences in learning a first language and learning a language in the classroom. Of particular interest will be the issue of language input as an external factor and the learners age as an internal factor. I will then discuss their implications for English language learning in the classrooms in Japan. It is hoped that these findings will encourage second language learners and parents, as well as practicing teachers, to reflect upon their own learning and teaching strategies.

2. Variables in Comparison and Contrast

Before weighing the differences between learning an L1 and learning an L2 in the classroom, however, there is at least another variable that needs to be addressed. Considering the cognitive and affective differences between children and adults (Brown, 1994: 51), it is simpler to compare young children learning an L1 and young children learning an L2 in the classroom. Nevertheless, this paper will attempt to undertake the comparison of children learning an L1 and adults learning an L2 in classroom settings, in order to relate to the current situation here in Japan where most people start receiving their formal English language education in junior high school. Although it is debatable as to where one may draw the line between childhood and adulthood, it is generally agreed that the distinction should reasonably be made before and after puberty (Brown, 1994: 51). Based on the above premise, the two types of learning will be compared and contrasted by referring to literature on first and second language acquisitions, and my own learning, teaching, and interactional experiences as a student, teacher of the English language, and spouse of a native speaker of English.

3. Input as an External Factor

One of the noticeable differences in learning an L1 in a natural setting and learning an L2 in the classroom seems to be the quantity and quality of the target language input the learner receives in her learning environment. Let us first consider the more obvious one of the two; the quantitative aspect of the learner input.

3.1 Quantity of the Learner Input

Babies and young children typically receive a vast amount of language of various kinds day after day, whereas, in comparison, the amount of language input is quite limited in the language classroom except in an immersion class. This distinction is even more marked in an EFL environment such as Japan, where a typical class meets for 50

minutes, three to five times a week in junior and senior high schools, and for 90 minutes, once a week at universities. Moreover, within these limited class hours of traditional, teacher-fronted classrooms, the Japanese language is frequently used to conduct the lesson.

3.1.1 Connectionism
The connectionist approach to learning has seen a remarkable advancement with the development of computer technology, and recently been applied to L2 learning. It argues that the human brain functions like a computer. The brain unconsciously analyzes incoming data and makes connections between them. These data connections become strengthened as the associations keep recurring. As the number of connections increases, the brain makes generalizations from the input, and creates larger neural networks (Mitchell and Myles, 1998: 79).

In terms of language learning, according to this model, what the language learner needs to know is available in the language he is exposed to. Thus, language input is the principal source of linguistic knowledge. When the brain hears recurring language items in a specific context, it searches for associations between the elements, and create connections between them. These connections become stronger as the learner comes in frequent contact with the language items in the same context. On the other hand, the connections weaken when the input is infrequent (Lightbown and Spada, 1999: 22 and 42).

Connectionism, however, has its share of criticism. It is accused of being purely environmentalistic, in that it does not consider innate faculty nor cognitive processing for language acquisition, and that it might imply a return to behaviourist stimulus-response practice (Larsen-Freeman and Long, 1991: 250251). In addition, since connectionist research on second language acquisition has so far dealt only with

simple morphemes in highly controlled laboratories, it may be premature at this point to decide from these experiments what might be understood about the process of learning natural languages in the real world (Mitchell and Myles, 1998: 84).

3.1.2 Implications of Connectionism

Although it is still unclear how far the findings can apply to the complexities of natural language learning situations, connectionism may at least explain the acquisition of basic vocabulary and grammatical items in the target language (Lightbown and Spada, 1999: 26 and 42). If the language learning process depends on the input frequency and regularity, as the connectionist model implies, L1 learners have a greater advantage over L2 learners. By constantly receiving a vast amount of language input in a specific, recurring and meaningful situational context, children are likely to daily develop stronger neurological connections. Connectionism might also explain part of the reasons why most Japanese learners of English often fail to maintain a short conversation with a native speaker even after years of the formal language learning. It is possible that their neurological networks have not sufficiently developed because of the sporadic input they receive in their classrooms.

Connectionism seems to clarify the importance of the amount of the language input that the learner receives, but it also highlights the significance of input quality in terms of frequency and regularity. What other qualities of the input, then, are observed in childrens acquisition of their L1? How different are they from the input that adult L2 learners typically receive in the classroom?

3.2 Quality of the Learner Input

The need for controlled input was also advocated by Krashen as comprehensible input, albeit from a different perspective. He asserts that the learner acquires the target language when the input she receives is slightly beyond her current level of competence; i +1 (Krashen, 1987: 20-21). One of the many controversial aspects of this hypothesis is that the +1 cannot be clearly defined, which makes it difficult to substantiate the hypothesis by research (Brown, 1994: 282, and Lightbown and Spada, 1999: 39). Most researchers, however, agree that comprehensible input is one of the necessary conditions for language acquisition (Cummins, 1988: 157, and Larsen-Freeman and Long, 1991: 142), although extensive input alone may not provide learners with enough information about what is not possible in the target language (Lightbown and Spada, 1999: 132).

Long (1983, cited in Ellis, 1997: 47-48) supports the importance of comprehensible input, but places emphasis on learner interaction. Through the negotiation of meaning, he argues, the input is further modified adequately for the level of the learner. Another perspective on the role of interaction in language learning has been drawn from Vygotskys (1978, cited in Ellis, 1997: 48) zone of proximal development theory. He maintains that children solve problems with the guidance of caretakers, who provide scaffolding; children then internalize these solutions.

3.2.1 Child-Directed Speech vs. Teacher Talk

In general, young L1 learners and adult L2 learners in the classroom are both provided with the input adjusted to their levels of comprehension. Child-directed speech and teacher talk share similar traits which involve a slower rate of speech, basic vocabulary, shorter and simpler sentences, repetition, and restating (Lightbown and Spada, 1999: 24, 34 and 177). What then seems to be the difference between child-directed speech and teacher talk?

3.2.2 Meaningful Input In child-directed speech, the topic first comes from the childs immediate here and now surroundings (Krashen, 1987:23). Later on it can include things the child did (Lightbown and Spada, 1999: 24). These egocentric topics enable the child to associate the language with the specific context at hand. Emerging from the child herself and her environment, they are naturally important and interesting to her, and make the association easily transferable to other similar recurring situations. On the other hand, in a language classroom, it is quite difficult for the teacher to always come up with something so interesting or so relevant that every student wants to find out more about it (Macnamara, 1975: 88). In a traditional Japanese EFL classroom, it has been my experience that the topic is seldom generated by the students themselves. When the given topic is so far removed from their own cultural experiences, even those cognitively matured adult learners could face difficulty in comprehending the meaning at the onset.

3.2.3 Differences in Additional Input Provided through Interaction In an L1 learning situation, the childs response to modified speech triggers additional, even better adjusted input from the caretaker through intimate, supportive, personal interaction. The child supplies content words, and the caretaker empathetically constructs them into a sentence with the grammatical items missing in the childs utterance, and also expands the original sentence into a situationally meaningful form for the child (Cook, 1969: 213-214).

In the case of such cultures as Western Samoa and Guatemala, where caretakers do not use modified speech, children still receive not only modifications of interactional structure (Long, 1980, cited in Larsen-Freeman and Long, 1991: 142) of conversation, which may include repetitions, clarification requests, comprehension checks, expansions, from their caretaker (Larsen-Freeman and Long, 1991: 142), but also simplified input from their older siblings and other children as well (Lightbown and Spada, 1999: 24).

In contrast, in most language classrooms, it is often impossible for the teacher to interact with each student on a person-to-person basis for a length of time. Even when the learners utterance triggers additional input from the teacher, it still tends to be, in the case of many Japanese EFL classes, not an expansion of the meaning, but grammatical error correction, just as Cook (1969: 214) pointed out over thirty years ago.

As far as language input is concerned, children learning the L1 seem to have an advantage. Is it, then, enough to automatically transfer the L1 learning environment and strategies of children to the L2 classroom in order to facilitate adult learners language learning? This leads us to the question of learner age.

4. Learner Age as an Internal Factor

With regard to childrens apparent superiority in language learning, Pinker (1994: 316) declares it is largely due to sheer age. Although the existence of bilinguals and polyglots who acquire native-like competence in their adulthood (Sorenson, 1967, cited in Brown, 1994: 56) puts his statement into question, learner age, in general, seems to play a considerable role in language learning.

4.1 Critical Period Hypothesis

The notion of a critical period was first brought to the field of L1 acquisition from biology (Genesee, 1988: 97). In order to account for the hypothesis, Penfield and Roberts (1959, cited in Genesee, 1988: 98) placed emphasis on neural plasticity, which is the capacity of a young childs brain to flexibly transfer a function from one area to another (Scovel, 1988: 128 and Larsen-Freeman and Long, 1991: 164). Lenneberg (1967, cited in Genesee, 1988: 98) then developed this concept by suggesting the lateralization of brain functions. Applied to L2 acquisition, this hypothesis states that L2 competence becomes increasingly difficult to achieve some time around or after puberty (Brown, 1994: 52-53). The research findings, however, have not yet been conclusive: Long (1990), for instance, presents a number of findings in support of this hypothesis not only in phonology but also in morphology and syntax. These

findings are also supported by Skehan (1998: 222-235). However, Genesee (1988: 100-103) provides contradictory findings from studies such as in one case where older learners achieved higher levels of L2 proficiency than younger learners, at least in the initial stage of their learning. Nevertheless, it seems logical to examine age-related differences in language learning, because virtually every learner undergoes significant physical, cognitive, and emotional changes at puberty.

4.2 Physical Development

With regard to the controversial issues surrounding neural plasticity and the lateralization of brain functions, researchers caution practicing teachers against the careless application of ongoing neurolinguistic research to language teaching (Genesee, 1988, and Scovel, 1988: 181-182). Although the research now suggests that the majority of language functions seems to be located in the left hemisphere of the brain, it does not lead to any conclusions as to how languages are actually learned (Scovel, 1988: 182).

Instead of cerebral development, according to Brown (1994: 56-58), the development of the learners speech muscles may be a larger contributing factor to the attainment of native-like pronunciation. Since human speech involves hundreds of muscles, childrens muscular plasticity gives them advantages over adult learners, as in the cases of most great athletes starting their training at a very young age. Complex sounds such as r and l in English are typically acquired at around the age of five, when plasticity is still present.

For the successful acquisition of a language, Skehan (1998: 234) also points out the importance of the learners memory capacity, which generally goes into a decline after a certain age.

4.3 Cognitive Development

At puberty, cognitive maturation from the concrete operational stage to the formal operational stage (Piaget, 1929, cited in Larsen-Freeman and Long, 1991: 163) also takes place. The ability to abstract, classify and generalize gives adult learners an advantage to systematically solve problems. According to Skehan (1998), adult language learners rely on their cognitive activities of general information processing, as a Language Acquisition Device gradually becomes unavailable for them. Cognitively developed learners, therefore, may benefit from deductive learning of language structures and grammar in the classroom, and meaningfulness in such learning is possibly far more important for those learners than for children (Ausubel, 1964).

For adults, furthermore, their L1 may exert not only a debilitating effect as a source of error and overproduction, but also a facilitating effect on their cognitive activities in second language learning, acting as an internal input for them to form an interlanguage (Brown, 1994: 64-66, Larsen-Freeman and Long, 1991: 96-107, and Ellis, 1997: 51-53).

4.4 Affective Development

It is not uncommon to observe an adult language learner, with a normal level of cognitive ability, and in an apparently ideal environment, turn out to be unsuccessful. One of the explanations for this may lie in the affective side of the learner, particularly in a classroom setting.

4.4.1 Language Ego and Second Identity Children, who are totally egocentric in nature, gradually become aware of the world around them as they grow older. Most of them go through an identity crisis at the same time as they experience significant changes in their physical and cognitive domains. Although it may not be clearly noticed in daily life in a mostly monolingual society as Japan, the learners identity is developed in close relation to the language he speaks, which is called language ego (Brown, 1994: 62). It is maintained in the SapirWhorf hypothesis (Brown, 1994: 186) that ones language actually shapes ones view of the world. Although the hypothesis is criticized by many, including Pinker (1994: 49-59), empirically it seems to

speak truth to some extent: it has been a common experience of many Japanese learners of English that they feel at a loss or even frustrated when they cannot find the English equivalent to a word such as natsukashii, an adjective expressing a feeling of complex and fond memories in the past. The concept would then have to be either elaborately explained or, more frequently, simply abandoned in the course of expressing themselves in the target language.

Once this language ego is established, the learner experiences inhibitions when he feels frustrated or threatened in the struggle of learning a different language (Brown, 1994: 63). In the classroom, in particular, when forced to perfectly produce an often complex sentence, the learner feels afraid that she might make a complete fool of herself in the audience of the teacher and fellow learners. The learner may also feel greatly frustrated, for being only able to express their highly complex ideas at a discourse level of an elementary school pupil. In order to become a successful learner, therefore, adult learners must overcome these inhibitions and frustrations, and cross the bridge to acquire a second identity (Brown, 1994: 63), or emphatic capacity (Guiora, et al., 1972: 113), in the new language.

4.4.2 Attitudes and Motivation Children learn their first language to fulfill their cognitive and communicative needs as developing individuals. Adults, on the other hand, need to be somehow motivated to learn a second language particularly in an EFL situation. Research shows that interests in language in general or in the target language correlate positively with achievement (Pimsleur, et al., 1962, cited in Guiora, 1972: 114).

Gardner and Lambert (1972, cited in Lightbown and Spada, 1999: 56) define two types of motivation in L2 learning: integrative motivation and instrumental motivation. It is argued that positive attitudes towards the community of the target language foster integrative motivation, which encourage the learner to acquire the new language in order to become closer to and/or to identify themselves with the speakers of the target language. Instrumentally motivated learners, on the other hand, try to acquire

proficiency for such practical purposes as becoming a translator, doing further research and aiming for promotion in their career.

It is this instrumental motivation that has urged many of the oppressed people in the world, such as the case of Japanese occupied Taiwan, to successfully learn the enemy language. In his concept of social distance, Schumann (1976, cited in Holland and Shortall, 1997: 85) places such colonial situations into his category of dominance-subordination, where people learn the language of the colonial power in spite of the fact that an adverse effect on the learners motivation is expected.

In a classroom setting, the adult learners motivation may also be increased by pedagogical techniques. Among them, according to educational psychology, are preparing the learner for the upcoming lesson, presenting various activities, and using co-operative activities instead of competitive ones (Crookes and Schmidt, 1991, cited in Lightbown and Spada, 1999: 57).

Skehan (1989, cited in Lightbown and Spada, 1999: 56) rightly points out that it is debatable whether the learner is successful because he is highly motivated, or he is highly motivated because he is successful. Although it is not always the case that high motivation leads to high achievement, it seems reasonable to say that motivation is nevertheless important for adult learners because, without motivation, it is difficult for them to continue the tedious and sometimes embarrassing task of learning a new language.

It is mostly because of these differences that adult learners must employ different learning strategies from young childrens. How then can traditional L2 classes be improved in Japan? Some suggestions for better learning strategies for in-class adult learners of the L2 will now be provided.

5. For Better Acquisition of a Second Language in the Classroom: Implications for Japanese ELT Classrooms

Let us first consider a number of external changes that might be needed for the betterment of the Japanese EFL classrooms.

5.1 Learning Environment

In order to create a facilitating environment for language learners in a traditional Japanese classroom, there seems to be an urgent need for much more input than the learners are currently receiving. Learners should be placed in a class appropriate for their level of comprehension, in order that the level of the input they receive may be closely monitored in terms of frequency and regularity, and so that learners can be provided with the language items necessary for learning. It follows that the use of authentic texts might not be advisable, at least for the beginning to intermediate levels of learners.

Furthermore, since the input should be meaningful to the learners, learners may gradually be encouraged to generate topics for themselves where possible, so that they may become more independent and apply what they studied in class to a similar situation that takes place in their lives. In order to take advantage of the negotiation of meaning through interactions, besides using pair work and group work activities, the class size should be made small enough for a teacher to spend more time interacting with each learner, and for giving them more constructive feedback rather than cursory error corrections. This can be accomplished by empathetically expanding learner-produced sentences in terms of meaning, and by supplying them with the necessary grammar items.

For cognitively developed learners, their ability to learn deductively may fully be exploited for faster learning, by encouraging them to pay conscious attention to grammatical features. L2 classes in Japan, however, would do better if they rely less on mechanical pattern practice. It is frequently observed,

unfortunately, that Japanese high school students forget a vast number of English lexical and grammatical items that they painstakingly memorized by rote without any contextual support, once they finish taking the university entrance examinations and are accepted for enrollment. In the same way, unless what learners practice in the classroom carries meaning for them, it seems less likely to be applied to real life situations outside the classroom.

Focusing now on the learner, what affective needs does the Japanese learner have for successful L2 learning?

5.2 Learner as a Person

Investigating how language is learned leads us to deal with mysteries of inner beings of learners. Almost all classroom learners, to one degree or another, hide and protect their fragile ego when learning a new language. It therefore seems pedagogically appropriate first to provide an unthreatening and supportive classroom environment for them. In this way, each student can experience a sense of success from time to time. The cultural background and interests of the learners should be taken into consideration, and integrated into the lesson plan.

In English language education, it seems also helpful if learners view English as a world language. It would help alleviate the unhealthy complex toward Anglo-American people and culture, which could, though not frequently, eventually produce a defensive and ethnocentric attitude in the learners. Since pronunciation is considered to be most closely tied with language ego (Guiora, et al., 1972: 112-113), it might also help decrease the stress level of learners if they are presented with examples of competent world figures for whom English is not their first language, such as President Mubarak and Henry Kissinger. Although both of them possess an Egyptian and a German accent respectively, when they speak, they speak with confidence and the whole world listens.

Many Japanese learners of English seem to entertain an idea that to be able to speak English fluently is fashionable. However, many lack concrete motivation, either integrative or instrumental, to acquire the language. These learners should be encouraged to set short-term, attainable goals for themselves. So long as the institution permits, evaluations should be based on their achievement toward the goals set by each learner. Such success can lead to higher motivation, which in turn would produce better results.

Finally, for those parents of young children, it would seem more promising if they start their childrens second language education early, should they think attaining a native-like fluency is of importance. A careful consideration, however, as to how their young children should be taught must be in order. Since, for instance, younger learners are cognitively not fully developed, they are likely to experience difficulties in a classroom setting if the target language is taught in an abstract and decontextualized manner (Genesee, 1988: 104). The problem of continuity in formal education from primary through tertiary schools should be another factor that needs to be investigated.

6. Conclusion
This paper has sought to highlight the following points: the differences in terms of quantity and quality of external input between children learning an L1 and adults learning an L2 in the classroom, and the learners physical, cognitive and affective development as an internal factor. Following the discussion, some suggestions for improving Japanese ELT classrooms were provided, based on the above points of reference.

Although the issue of learner output is equally of a great interest for language acquisition, it was beyond the scope of this paper. It is hoped, however, that this research has revealed the importance of an integrated understanding of why learning an L2 in the classroom seems to impose difficulties on adult learners. Recognizing that there are substantial differences between high jumping and language teaching, Scovel (1988: 170-173) nevertheless illustrates the importance of theory for language teaching through a sports analogy:

theoretical concerns can be extremely important because in this specific sport, for example, they have provided insights that have successively improved methods over the decades and have successfully raised the world record to the now unbelievable height of almost 8 feet. it is vital that ESL/EFL teachers devote a great deal of time and attention to theory and research in linguistics, sociology, psychology, etc., because they, like athletic coaches, must keep abreast of theoretical developments in order to do an effective job of teaching and in order to assess and develop new methods and curricula.

It is also hoped that, through this research, L2 learners and teachers alike will be encouraged to investigate their learning environment and further improve their own language learning and teaching strategies.

References

Ausubel, D.P. (1964) Adults vs. Children in Second-Language Learning: Psychological Considerations. Modern Language Journal, 48: 420-424.

Beebe, L.M. (ed.) (1988) Issues in Second Language Acquisition. Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.

Brown, H. D. (1994) Principles of Language Learning and Teaching (3rd edn.) New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Cook, V. (1969) The Analogy Between First and Second Language Learning. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 7: 207-216.

Cummins, J. (1988) Second Language Acquisition within Bilingual Education Programs. In L.M. Beebe (1988) (ed.): 145-166.

Ellis, R. (1997) Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Genesee, F. (1988) Neuropsychology and Second Language Acquisition. In L.M. Beebe (1988). (ed.): 81112.

Guiora, A., Brannon, R. and Dull, C. (1972) Empathy and Second Language Learning. Language Learning, 22: 111-130.

Holland, R. and Shortall, T. (1997) Classroom Research and Research Methods. University of Birmingham MA TEFL/TESL Open Learning Programme.

Krashen, S. (1987) Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. London: Prentice Hall.

Larsen-Freeman, D. and Long, M.H. (1991) An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition Research. London: Longman.

Lightbown, P.M. and Spada N. (1999) How Languages are Learned (2nd edn.) Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Long, M.H. (1990) Maturational Constraints on Language Development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12: 251-285.

Macnamara, J. (1975) Comparison Between First and Second Language Learning. Working Papers on Bilingualism, 7: 71-94.

Mitchell, R. and Myles, F. (1998) Second Language Learning Theories. London: Arnold.

Pinker, S. (1994) The Language Instinct. London: Penguin Books.

Scovel, T. (1988) Multiple Perspectives Make Singular Teaching. In L.M. Beebe (1988) (ed.): 169-190.

Skehan, P. (1998) A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

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... (Colin Phillips 1995, MIT)

One of the first things that should strike any half observant parent is the speed and apparent accuracy in which a child proceeds to learn his or her own language. This remarkably rapid development seems to fly in the face of many known facts about the nature of languageso much so that it has become widely accepted in the scientific community to think of language and its acquisition as one of many utterly unexplainable mysteries that beset us in our daily lives. Even the most clever of scientists today do not know where to begin with trying to unravel the range of complexities that all of language brings. Even so, the child moves ever onward, seemingly with little deference to this so-called mystery and proceeds with little effort to crack the sacred code nonetheless. How could this be? Firstly, parents provide very little in the way of language instruction to the childcontrary to what might be believed, parents do not teach their children to speak. Most parents wouldnt even have the means in which to explain language overtly to a child even if they wanted). In fact, parents spend the majority of time correcting falsehoods (those little white lies) rather than correcting erroneous grammars. On the mere face of it, one would think children grow-up being little lawyers seeking out truths rather than little linguists seeking out correct hypotheses to their language. Thank God, the latter indeed prevails. Children will continue to lie in order to take-on an advantage, while, without exception, by-and-by acquiring their mother language. By the time a child enters pre-school, she has more-or-less mastered much of her target language. However, in light of these remarkable achievements, children do seem to go through varying degrees of stages along the way to their full mastery. It is this notion of stages of acquisition that has interested the developmental linguists most. Stage-1: Examples of early multi-word speech Him do it. What daddy doing? Me want car. Where go? Yesterday I go. That John car. Her falled me down. Me no like eat. Why them go there? It is a fact that children do not produce adult-like utterances from the very beginning of their multi-word speech. And so much of the debate ongoing in child first language acquisition has been devoted to the nature and extent of what gets missed out where in regards to their early grammatical systems. Theory internal measures have been spawned every which way in effort to account for the lack of apparent adultlike language in young children. Theories abound. Despite some evidence that would seem to point to the contrary, more robust syntactic theories from the outset continue to view the very young child as

maintaining an operative level of language closely bound to abstract knowledge of grammatical categories (Pinker 1984, Hyams 1986, Radford 1990, Wexler 1996, and Radford & Galasso 1998). For instance, Pinker (1996) has described early language production (bottom-up) in terms of a first order (general nativist) cognitive account, suggesting a potential bottleneck effect which attributes a limited high-scope memory to account for the childs truncated syntax of Tense/Agreement and Transitive errors (e.g. Her want), and over-application of Tense errors (e.g. Does it rolls?). In this sense, it is believed that high-scope memory serves as a kind of scaffolding for formal abstraction. One possible interpretation of this would be to suggest that a rule-based abstraction process (syntax) somehow has evolved out of a biological need to handle and compute the vast and newfound quantitative/qualitative store of linguistic material presently endowed to humans due to this increase in memory: i.e., high-scope memory spawns variable abstraction. There is no question that a purely associative-based model of lexical storage, with the entire range of inflections being stored as whole lexical-chunks, would burden the memory process in such a way that it would squeeze out any remaining computational space required for more convoluted syntactic operations (such as movement and the realization of formal functional features). Radford (1990), on the other hand, has maintained a second order (special nativist) maturational account affecting syntactic complexity in order to explain the same lack of adult-like speech. In this sense, memory has nothing whatsoever to do with the emergence of formal syntax (or lack thereof) and a more special nativist stancespecial in the sense that we are now operating on a top-down scenariois pursued. Notwithstanding peripheral differences regarding the inherent causes of such errors, it should be noted that these two long standing nativist positions share a more common bond in that they were reactions to much of what was bad coming on the heels of work done in the 1970stheories which sought not only to account for such errors on purely semantic grounds, but, likewise, seemingly to demote the childs entire early grammatical apparatus to a mere level of associative-style cognitive learning (e.g., Bloom 1975, Braine 1976, and to some extent Bowerman (1973) among others). (Although it is true that a certain amount of Pinkers work in this general context continues to bootstrap early grammars to semantics, the steering away from potential non-nativistic associative learning-based accounts to proper syntactic-based accounts was viewed by many to be a timely paradigm shift, acting as a safeguard against what might be construed as bad-science behaviorism (of the purely semantic kind). This shift adjusted toward a more accurate nativist stance, swinging the Plato vs. Aristotle debate back to Platos court, at least of the time being (as witnessed in Chomskys entitled book Cartesian Linguistics)a move keeping in line with what was then coming down the pike in Chomskyan linguistics. One thing, however, that seems to have caught the imagination of developmental linguists in recent years has been to question again the actual infrastructure of the child brain that produces the sort of immature grammar: namely, a rejuvenation has reappeared in the literature circumscribing new understanding of age-old questions dealing with the computational structure of the mind (see The Dual Mechanism Model).

Second Language Learning

Much of Second Language Learning centers around issues of the nature of learnability. Whereas 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 problem solving learning strategies to cope with the material. This difference between First Language Acquisition vs. Second Language Learning has been recently articulated as a Fundamental Difference Hypothesis. It goes without saying that children naturally acquire their first language. Adults (post-critical period) do not naturally acquire their second language, as a number of fundamental differences appear in their rationale towards learning. Attempts to juxtapose what we do know about first language development, parameter settings, syntactic-categorical development (Lexical vs. Functional), etc. and comparing and contrasting these to second language have spawned new theoretical models, approaches and theories which seek to address new issues in TESL pedagogy. For a summary of issues, see the paper Second Language Interference and the Pro-drop Parameter published here on-line).

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... (Colin Phillips 1995, MIT)

One of the first things that should strike any half observant parent is the speed and apparent accuracy in which a child proceeds to learn his or her own language. This remarkably rapid development seems to fly in the face of many known facts about the nature of languageso much so that it has become widely accepted in the scientific community to think of language and its acquisition as one of many utterly unexplainable mysteries that beset us in our daily lives. Even the most clever of scientists today do not know where to begin with trying to unravel the range of complexities that all of language brings. Even so, the child moves ever onward, seemingly with little deference to this so-called mystery and proceeds with little effort to crack the sacred code nonetheless. How could this be? Firstly, parents provide very little in the way of language instruction to the childcontrary to what might be believed, parents do not teach their children to speak. Most parents wouldnt even have the means in which to explain language overtly to a child even if they wanted). In fact, parents spend the majority of time correcting falsehoods (those little white lies) rather than correcting erroneous grammars. On the mere face of it, one would think children grow-up being little lawyers seeking out truths rather than little linguists seeking out correct hypotheses to their language. Thank God, the latter indeed prevails. Children will continue to lie in order to take-on an advantage, while, without exception, by-and-by acquiring their mother language. By the time a child enters pre-school, she has more-or-less mastered much of her target language. However, in light of these remarkable achievements, children do seem to go through varying degrees of stages along the way to their full mastery. It is this notion of stages of acquisition that has interested the developmental linguists most. Stage-1: Examples of early multi-word speech Him do it. What daddy doing? Me want car. Where go? Yesterday I go. That John car. Her falled me down. Me no like eat. Why them go there? It is a fact that children do not produce adult-like utterances from the very beginning of their multi-word speech. And so much of the debate ongoing in child first language acquisition has been devoted to the nature and extent of what gets missed out where in regards to their early grammatical systems. Theory internal measures have been spawned every which way in effort to account for the lack of apparent adultlike language in young children. Theories abound. Despite some evidence that would seem to point to the contrary, more robust syntactic theories from the outset continue to view the very young child as

maintaining an operative level of language closely bound to abstract knowledge of grammatical categories (Pinker 1984, Hyams 1986, Radford 1990, Wexler 1996, and Radford & Galasso 1998). For instance, Pinker (1996) has described early language production (bottom-up) in terms of a first order (general nativist) cognitive account, suggesting a potential bottleneck effect which attributes a limited high-scope memory to account for the childs truncated syntax of Tense/Agreement and Transitive errors (e.g. Her want), and over-application of Tense errors (e.g. Does it rolls?). In this sense, it is believed that high-scope memory serves as a kind of scaffolding for formal abstraction. One possible interpretation of this would be to suggest that a rule-based abstraction process (syntax) somehow has evolved out of a biological need to handle and compute the vast and newfound quantitative/qualitative store of linguistic material presently endowed to humans due to this increase in memory: i.e., high-scope memory spawns variable abstraction. There is no question that a purely associative-based model of lexical storage, with the entire range of inflections being stored as whole lexical-chunks, would burden the memory process in such a way that it would squeeze out any remaining computational space required for more convoluted syntactic operations (such as movement and the realization of formal functional features). Radford (1990), on the other hand, has maintained a second order (special nativist) maturational account affecting syntactic complexity in order to explain the same lack of adult-like speech. In this sense, memory has nothing whatsoever to do with the emergence of formal syntax (or lack thereof) and a more special nativist stancespecial in the sense that we are now operating on a top-down scenariois pursued. Notwithstanding peripheral differences regarding the inherent causes of such errors, it should be noted that these two long standing nativist positions share a more common bond in that they were reactions to much of what was bad coming on the heels of work done in the 1970stheories which sought not only to account for such errors on purely semantic grounds, but, likewise, seemingly to demote the childs entire early grammatical apparatus to a mere level of associative-style cognitive learning (e.g., Bloom 1975, Braine 1976, and to some extent Bowerman (1973) among others). (Although it is true that a certain amount of Pinkers work in this general context continues to bootstrap early grammars to semantics, the steering away from potential non-nativistic associative learning-based accounts to proper syntactic-based accounts was viewed by many to be a timely paradigm shift, acting as a safeguard against what might be construed as bad-science behaviorism (of the purely semantic kind). This shift adjusted toward a more accurate nativist stance, swinging the Plato vs. Aristotle debate back to Platos court, at least of the time being (as witnessed in Chomskys entitled book Cartesian Linguistics)a move keeping in line with what was then coming down the pike in Chomskyan linguistics. One thing, however, that seems to have caught the imagination of developmental linguists in recent years has been to question again the actual infrastructure of the child brain that produces the sort of immature grammar: namely, a rejuvenation has reappeared in the literature circumscribing new understanding of age-old questions dealing with the computational structure of the mind (see The Dual Mechanism Model).

Second Language Learning

Much of Second Language Learning centers around issues of the nature of learnability. Whereas 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 problem solving learning strategies to cope with the material. This difference between First Language Acquisition vs. Second Language Learning has been recently articulated as a Fundamental Difference Hypothesis. It goes without saying that children naturally acquire their first language. Adults (post-critical period) do not naturally acquire their second language, as a number of fundamental differences appear in their rationale towards learning. Attempts to juxtapose what we do know about first language development, parameter settings, syntactic-categorical development (Lexical vs. Functional), etc. and comparing and contrasting these to second language have spawned new theoretical models, approaches and theories which seek to address new issues in TESL pedagogy. For a summary of issues, see the paper Second Language Interference and the Pro-drop Parameter published here on-line).

First and Second Language Acquisition

INTRODUCTION:
In recent years, there has been an increase in research on both first and second language acquisition. Many linguists and language instructors are studying first and second language acquisition in an attempt to gain a better understanding of both language learning and effective teaching techniques. Researchers have strived to determine if there exist any differences or similarities between second language learning and first language acquisition. As well, scholars have tried to find out why certain differences exist and to understand what exactly is the causes of these differences. The purpose of this paper is to compare and contrast first and second language acquisition. However, it should be pointed out that there is no simple or universally accepted answer to the question, Are first and second language acquisition similar? There are several issues that need to be taken into consideration when attempting to compare first and second language acquisition. This paper will also try to provide examples when necessary in order to support particular views with regards to the differences in first and second language acquisition.

REASONABLE COMPARISONS:
In order to make fair comparisons of child first language acquisition and adult second language acquisition, it is necessary to observe the differences between children and adults. As Brown (1994, p. 51) indicates, It is, in one sense, rather illogical to compare the first language acquisition of a child with the second language acquisition of an adult. The first language acquisition of a child is difficult to compare with the second language acquisition of an adult as a result of the unbelievable cognitive, affective and physical differences that exist between adults and children (Brown 1994, p. 52). A child acquiring his or her first language is referred to as L1 and an adult learning a second language is referred to as L2. Making comparisons between first and second language learning is not such an easy task; however, there are generally four ways of comparing first and second language acquisition (Brown 1994, p.54):

Child L1 vs Adult L1 (Type a) Child L1 vs Adult L2 (Type b) Child L2 vs Child L1 (Type c) Child L2 vs Adult L2 (Type d)

COGNITIVE FACTORS:
It has been found that cognitive developments of the human brain occur quite rapidly over the first 16 years of life (Brown 1994, p. 58) and decrease after adulthood. As well, Jean Piaget

found that puberty is the most critical stage for language acquisition, where he described the cognitive processes of language learners using two terms: equilibrium and disequilibrium (Brown 1994). Piaget saw these two concepts occurring as an ongoing cycle during language acquisition. Disequilibrium related to the state of confusion or uncertainty whereas equilibrium pertained to the state of cognition characterized by certainty and resolution (Brown 1994, p. 59). It has been hypothesized that the lack of tolerance for contradictions in adults acts as barrier to successful second language acquisition. Rote, mechanistic learning that isnt related to the second language learners existing knowledgebase is often useless. Meaningful learning connects new information to experiences and existing knowledge in both child and adult second language learners. It is also clear that adults attempting to learn a second language would benefit from grammatical explanations and deductive thinking (Brown 1994, p 59). However, complex grammatical explanations and deductive reasoning would be beyond the cognitive abilities of most children. Research has shown that children are so successful in learning second languages because they are not aware that they are even learning a second language (Brown 1994, p. 59). Children are not conscious of the fact that they are even acquiring sophisticated rules of language and master their first language and develop their knowledge of syntax subconsciously (ONeill 1998, L2 Learning. para.2). Unfortunately, adult second language learners do not acquire the rules of syntax unconsciously as easily as children do. In short, L2 syntax is not acquired with the same ease as L1 syntax (ONeill 1998, L2 Learning. para.2). Moreover, children are also not as sensitive to the political or social ramifications of learning a given language as adults. Surprisingly, although adults have cognitive abilities that are much greater than that of a child, many adults cannot successful acquire a second language successfully.

THE CRITICAL PERIOD HYPOTHESIS:

Many scholars believe that there is a biological window of opportunity for human beings to acquire a language. The critical period hypothesis, states that there is a period during which language acquisition is easy and complete (Ellis 1997, p. 67). That is, many believe that there is a biologically determined critical period for language acquisition (Brown 1994, p. 52). The critical period hypothesis was generated during research conducted on people who suffered brain injuries and, as a result, lost their language abilities. Researchers have suggested that the critical point for second language acquisition takes place at around puberty, while other researchers believe that this critical period occurs at an age much earlier than puberty (Mangubhai 2003, p. 1.12). It is after puberty that people often experience more difficulty in acquiring a second language and a natural or native-like accent (Brown 1994, p. 53). However, it is obvious that this does not mean that it is impossible for adult language learners to attempt to learn a second language.

Researchers have also found that neurological factors are responsible in the successful acquisition of both first and second language learning (Brown 1994, p. 54). In 1988, Scovel found that there is a strong possibility that there is a critical period for not only first language acquisition but also second language acquisition (Brown 1994, p. 54). Scovels research findings indicate that there is a neurologically based critical period for language acquisition. As well, Walsh and Driller concluded that different aspects of a second language are best learned at specific ages (Brown 1994, p. 55). Their research suggested that foreign accents, for example, are difficult to overcome after childhood (Brown 1994, p. 55). As a result, pronunciation is largely dependent on early maturing of the brain. Generally speaking, these finding lend support to the view that there seems to be a neurologically based critical period for authentic, native-like accents but not so for higher order processes such as communicative fluency (Brown 1994, p. 55). Second language learners were found to use their right hemisphere more than first language learners. Obler (1981) and Genesee (1982) found that individuals, who acquire their second language late relative to their first language, use their right brain more. Researchers also observed more right hemisphere activity in the brain during the early stages of second language acquisition (Brown 1994, p. 55).

LATERALIZATION:
One of the key concepts used to illustrate the critical period hypothesis is referred to as brain lateralization (Brown 1994, p. 53). Brain lateralization is a term used to describe the neurological functions that take place in each of the brains two hemispheres.

In 1973, Stephen Krashen believe that full lateralization of the brain occurred sometime around the age of 5 (Brown 1994, p. 54). The brain, basically, assigns specific functions to each hemisphere. For instance, the left side is responsible for language ability in humans. Plasticity or the capabilities of the brain are though to be at their greatest during childhood (Mangubhai 2003, p. 1.12). Researchers have attempted to find out when lateralization takes place and the impact it has on language learning (Mangubhai 2003, p. 1.12). Many scholars believe that lateralization takes places between the age of 2 and the age of 12. For example, young patients suffering from left hemisphere brain injuries were studied by Eric Lenneberg in 1967. Lenneberg found that the damage to the left hemisphere in pre-pubescent children did not prevent the children from eventually recovering all of their language abilities. Interestingly, it was revealed that their brains were able to reassign linguistic functions to the right hemisphere. In other words, children under the age of 12 were able to re-learn their first language without any noticeable handicaps (Brown 1994, p. 54).

However, patients older than 12 were less likely to recover their lost language abilities (Ellis 1997, p. 67; Mangubhai 2003, p. 1.2). Researchers also found that the right hemisphere learned how to do what the left hemisphere was doing prior to the injury in pre-pubescent patients. The lateralization hypothesis may provide insight with regard to the differences between child and adult second language acquisition (Brown 1994, p. 59). Some researchers have suggested that as the brain matures, the prospect of acquiring a second language becomes much more difficult (Brown 1994, p. 53). Neurological research has in fact supported this assertion. However, researchers have struggled to answer a couple of very important questions: at what point does lateralization take place and how does the process of lateralization affect language acquisition?

PRONUNCIATION AND ACCENT:

It is widely believed that the earlier children start to develop a physical skill, the better they will be at that skill. This appears to be true for children who start to play sports or study a musical instrument at a very young age. The child learns to develop and control dozens of muscles and speech organs such as the tongue, lips, throat and mouth. This helps them attain native-like or natural pronunciation. Not only are speech muscles developed early in life but so are the childs neurological pathways which assist in the production of sounds (Mangubhai 2003, p. 1.11). Conversely, adults have, for their L1, already developed muscles in their throat, mouth, lips, etc. and then must go through this process again for their L2. The adult L2 learner must develop new habits and resist any temptation to use old, unhelpful habits in learning their L2 (Mangubhai 2003, p. 1.11). This may be one reason that adult second language learners have more difficulty achieving a native-like accent, whereas, children learning a second language are more successful in acquiring a native-like accent. However, it is possible for adult L2 learners to still achieve high fluency in their second language without having native-like pronunciation (Mangubhai 2003, p. 1.11). Also, first language learning often takes place in a meaningful context, whereas second language learning usually occurs in an artificial environment such as a classroom. As mentioned above, classroom lessons are often marked by repetitive pattern practice drills and rote memorization tasks.

INPUT:
The input or samples of language to which a learner is exposed, is very important. Researchers have tried to establish what kind of input facilitates learning. For example, do learners benefit more from input that has been simplified for them or from authentic language of native speaker communication? (Ellis 1997, p. 5). A child learns its first language while, at the same time, learning about the world they live in and the input she receives will become comprehensible to her through her contact with the world itself (Laohasiri 1998, para.2). Cognitive mechanisms of L2 learners possess general knowledge about the world which they can draw on to help them understand L2 input. L2 learners can also use

communication strategies to help them make effective use of their L2 knowledge. For instance, adult second language learners can use mnemonic devices or existing ideas or notions that they may already have about the world in order to memorize new vocabulary (Ellis 1997, p. 5). Some researchers might also argue that L2 learners are well-equipped with pre-existing knowledge of how language in general works, which helps them learn their second language. Instead of parental input the adult second language learner relies on teacher input. Since input from parents is very important to the first language learner, it is also a good idea for teachers to be as deliberate but meaningful in their communications with students (Brown 1994, p. 69).

L2 LEARNING STRATEGIES:
When an adult learner of a second language uses certain techniques in an attempt to learn a second language, we refer to this as learning strategies (Ellis 1997). Learning strategies may include what is known as social affective strategies, where the learner repeats words out loud in order to memorize new vocabulary or phrases or uses situational context in order to better understand the new language. As mentioned previously, adult language learners may also use mnemonic devices in order to remember complex vocabulary items and phrases. Adult L2 learners are also able to ask questions, make requests and repeat words and phrases, which are also social affective strategies. On the other hand, cognitive strategies involves analysis of the learning materials (Ellis 1997, p. 77). Recombination is used as a strategy to recombine known elements of the L2. Metacognitive strategies include the planning and monitoring and evaluating of the learning process (Ellis 1997). As well, good second language learners are proactive in that they are willing to assume responsibility for their own learning and appear to understand both the learning process and their own personal learning styles (Ellis 1997, p. 77). Research has shown that good L2 learners are usually very good at using metacognitive strategies.

AFFECTIVE FACTORS:
Human beings are emotional and, as a result, researchers have been looking into the affective variable of second language acquisition (Brown 1994, p. 61). The affective considerations of language acquisition include: inhibition, imitation, attitude, self-esteem and anxiety. For example, young children tend to be very egocentric and they perceive events in the World in relation to themselves. However, as children reach the age of puberty they become much more self conscious and insecure with their language ego. It is during this period that the child changes physically, emotionally and cognitively. All of these changes in the child ultimately affect communication. By the time children reach their teenage years, children see themselves in comparison to other people around them. The notion of self-concept begins to develop and the adolescent is aware of how others

see him or her. In a sense, the child becomes more self-conscious (Mangubhai 2003, p. 1.15). Selfconcept, comparisons between themselves and the others around them affect the learning of a second language among young people. Adults tend to believe that mistakes should not be made and feel humiliated or foolish when they make a mistake (Mangubhai 2003, p. 1.15). As a result, many adult second language learners give up. On the other hand, children do not seem to suffer from these problems such as low-self esteem or self-doubt quite as often as adult learners seem to experience them. This fact may be explained for the egocentrism that is characteristic of many young children (Mangubhai 2003, p. 1.5). Children are not worried about what other people will think of them if they make a mistake usually. In an act of self-preservation, the young language learner attempts to defend the language ego. As a result, the child will attempt to use the native language for defense (Brown 1994, p. 62). Many second language learners feel threatened and are unwilling to put themselves in situations where they may look foolish, such as in attempting to speak a foreign language. As a result, it is important for second language learners to overcome inhibitions in order to acquire a second language successfully.

CASE STUDIES: WES, GENIE and U.S. IMMIGRANTS:

Richard Schmidt, A researcher from the University of Hawaii, conducted a 3 year case study on a Japanese man named Wes. Wes was an artist who had moved to Hawaii. Wes was reported to have very good ability at communicating with others in English, for example, he could initiate conversations, give small presentations on his artwork and assist in mediating personal disputes between friends (Ellis 1997, p. 8). However, Wes was not able to acquire syntax or the grammatical rules of English. Some scholars described Wes as only concerned with communicating and not interested in the formal rules of English. It appeared that Wess development as a L2 learner of English was indeed limited and appeared to have plateaued with respect to the level of grammar that he was able to acquire. In Wess case, he did not fully acquire certain grammatical forms such as the present continuous. Wes would use the present continuous when it was not needed as in, Yesterday, I didnt painting (Ellis 1997, p. 7). In sum, even though Wes was immersed in the culture of the target language, he did not seem to improve with regard to English grammar. The critical period hypothesis was also supported by the case of Genie, a young girl, who was tragically kept in isolation by her parents for many years and never taught how to speak (Ellis 1997, p. 68). While Genie was able to eventually communicate quite well using English, she did not ever learn to acquire the various grammatical rules in English. As a result, it is widely supported that adult L2 learners are highly unlikely to ever acquire native-like competence with their second language (Ellis 1997, p. 68). Similarly, studies of Korean and other Asian immigrants to the United States have shown that children

who arrive in America before the age of 12 experience greater success in acquiring native-like competence in English. Age of arrival of Immigrants is the greatest predictor of second language acquisition success as opposed to the number of years the immigrant spends immersed in the target language (Ellis 1997, p. 68).

CONCLUSION:
In sum, making direct comparisons between first and second language acquisition can be a difficult and complex task. Indeed, it is important to observe the incredible cognitive, physical and affective differences between child L1 learners and adult L2 learners (Brown 1994). Moreover, children are not conscious of the fact that they are even acquiring sophisticated rules of language. Children master their first language and develop their knowledge of syntax subconsciously (ONeill 1998, L2 Learning. para.2). As mentioned in this discussion, children acquire their first language prior to the onset of puberty. It is during this time period that children are learning about the world they live in and other very important life skills. Adult L2 learning, on the other hand, is not genetically triggered in anyway. It is also interesting to note that children, in contrast to adult second language learners, never experience the urge to consciously or subconsciously reject their first language (ONeill 1998, L2 Learning. para.4). It appears that children do not question the learning process and are not overly analytical with the new language like adult L2 learners appear to be (ONeill 1998, L1 Acquisition. para.4). Also, children with brain injuries as well as mentally disordered children will acquire all the formal rules and structures of their language. This was evident in Lennebergs research, which revealed that the damage to the left hemisphere in pre-pubescent children did not prevent the children from eventually recovering all of their language abilities. Lastly, it has been found that adult second language learners do not acquire the rules of syntax unconsciously in the way that children do. In short, L2 syntax is not acquired with the same ease as L1 syntax (ONeill 1998, L2 Learning. para.2). The information generated from the case studies of Wes, the Japanese artist in Hawaii and the tragic story of Genie and the Asian immigrants who moved to America support the assertion that the rules of syntax are not as easily acquired by adult learners as opposed to child L1 learners.

References:
Brown, H. Douglas (1994). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. Prentice. Hall: New Jersey 3rd ed. Ellis, R. (1997). Second Language Acquisition. Oxford University Press: New York

Mangubhai, F. (2003) LIN8001: Principles of Second Language Learning. University of Southern Queensland: Toowoomba, Queensland, Australia Laohasiri, K. (1998, August 17). Assumption University of Thailand: Language and Learning Awareness. Retrieved July 22, 2003 from http://www.au.ac.th/~u4119986/u1-4.html Posted by Fred Shannon at 4:25 PM Labels: Cognitive Factors, Critical Period Hypothesis, Genie, L1, L2, Lateralization, Learning Strategies, Second Language Acquisition 0 comments:

Post a Comment
Newer Post Older Post Home Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Blog Archive

May 2006 (1) April 2006 (1) March 2006 (4) January 2006 (3) December 2005 (3) November 2005 (3) October 2005 (3) September 2005 (1) August 2005 (4) July 2005 (1) June 2005 (4) May 2005 (1) April 2005 (9)

Free Web Hosting Provider - Web Hosting - E-commerce - High Speed Internet - Free Web Page

Search the Web

COMPARING AND CONTRASTING FIRST AND SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

Types of Comparison and Contrast
The Critical Period Hypothesis

In the Classroom: The Audiolingual Method

The increased pace of research on first language acquisition in the 60s and 70s attracted the attention not only of linguists of all kinds but also of educators in various language-related fields. Today the applications of research findings in first language acquisition are widespread. In language arts education, for example, it is not uncommon to find teacher trainess studying first language acquisition, particularly acquisition after age 5, in order to improve their understanding of the task of teaching language speaker to native speakers. In foreign language education most standard text and curricula now include some introductory material in first language acquisition. The reason for this are clear: We have all observed children acquiring their first language easily and well, yet the learning of second language, particularly in an education setting, often meets

with great difficulty and sometimes failure. We should therefore able to learn something from a systematic study of that first language learning experience. The purpose of this chapter is to set forth explicity some of the paramters for comparing and contrasting the two types of language acquisition. The first step in that interpretation process might be to dispel some myths about the relationship between first and second language acquisition. H.H. Stern(1970:57-58) summarized some common arguments that cropped up from time to time to recommend a second language teaching method or procedure on the basis of first language acquisition:
1. In language teaching, we must practice and practice, again and again. Just watch a small child learning his mother tongue. He repeats things over and over again. During the language-learning stage he practices all the time. This is what we must also do when we learn a foreign language. 2. Language learning is mainly a matter of imitation. You must be a mimic. Just like a small child. He imitates everything. 3. First, we practice the seperate sounds, then words, the sentences. That is the natural order and is therefore right for learning a foreign language. 4. Watch a small child's speech development. First he listens, then he speaks. Understanding always precedes speaking. Therefore, this must be the right order of presenting the skills in a foreign language. 5. A small child listens and speaks and no one would dream of making him read or write. Reading and writing are advanced stages of language development. The natural order for first and second language learning is listening, speaking, reading, writing. 6. You did not have to translate when you were small. If you were able to learn your own language without translation, you should be able to learn a foreign language in the same way. 7. A small child simply uses language. He does not learn a formal grammar. You don't tell him about verbs and nouns. Yet he learns language prefectly. It is equally unnecessary to use grammatical conceptualization in teaching a foreign language.

The statements tend to represent the views of those who were dominated by a behavioristic theory of language in which the first language acquisition process is viewed as consisting of rote practice, habit formation, shaping, overlearning, reinforcement, conditioning, association, stimulus and response, and who therefore assumed that the second language learning process involves the same constructs. There are flaws in each view. Sometimes the flaw is in the assumption behind the statement about first language learning and sometimes it is in the analogy or implication that is drawn; sometimes it is in both. Types of Comparison and Contrast At the very least, one needs to approach comparison procedure by first considering the differences between children and adults. It is, in one sense, rather illogical to compare the first language acquisition of child with the second language acquisition of an adult. It is much more logical to compare first and second language learning in children or to compare second language learning in children and adults. It is reasonable, therefore, to view the latter type of comparison within a matrix of possible comparisons. Figure 3-1 represents four possible categories to compare, defined by age and type of acquisition. Note that the vertical shaded line between the

"child" and "adult" is "fuzzy" to allow for varying definitions of adulthood.

Cell A1 is clearly representative of an abnormal situation. There have been few recorded instances of an adult acquiring a first language. Accounts of "wolf children" and other instances of severe retardation fall into this category. Since it is not imperative at this time to deal with abnormal or pathological cases of language acquisition, we can ignore category A1. That leaves three possible type of comparisons:
1. first and second language acquisition in children (C1-C2), holding age constant. 2. second language acquisition in children and adults (C2-A2), holding second language constant. 3. first language acquisition in children and second language acquisition in adults (C1-A2).

In the first type of comparison, holding age constant, one is manipulating the language variable. It is important to remember, however, that a 3-year-old and a 9-year-old - both children by definition - exhibit vast cognitive, affective and physical differences, and that comparisons of all three types must be treated with caution when varying ages of children are being considered. In the second type of comparison one is manipulating the differences between children and adults. such comparisons are, for obvious reasons, the most fruitful in yielding analogies for adult second language classroom instruction. In the third type of comparison, of course, both variables are being manipulated. Most of traditional comparisons have been of type 3, and such comparisons are difficult to make because of the emormous cognitive, affective, and physical differences between children and adults. That is not to say that type 3 comparisons ought to be avoided entirely; some valuable insights are to be gained from such comparisons.

The Critical Period Hypothesis A biologically determined period of life when language can be acquired. The critical period hypothesis claims that there is such a biological timetable. Initially, the notion of a critical period was connected only to first language acquisition. Pathological studies of children who acquired their first language, or aspects thereof, became fuel for arguments of biologically determined predispositions, timed for release, which would wane if the correct environmental stimuli were not present at the crucial stage. The "classic" argument is that a critical point for second language acquisition occurs around puberty, beyond which people seem to be relatively incapable of acquiring a nativelike accent of the second language. This has led some to assume, incorrectly, that by the age of 12 or 13 you are "over the hill" when it comes to the possibility of successful second language learning. In order to examine these issues we will look at neurological and psychomotor considerations first; these will then followed by an examination of cognitive, affective, and linguistic considerations. Neurological Considerations One of the most interesting areas of inquiry in second language acquisition has been study of the function of the brain in the process of acquisition. There is evidence in neurological research that as the human brain matures certain functions are assigned - or "lateralized" - to the left hemisphere of the brain and certain other functions to the right hemisphere. Intellectual, logical, and analytical functions appear to be largely located in the left hemisphere while the right hemisphere controls functions related to emotional and social needs. Language function appear to be controlled mainly in the left hemisphere, though there is a good deal of conflicting evidence. While question about how language is lateralized in the brain are interesting indeed, a more crucial question for second language researchers has centered on when lateralization takes place, and how that lateralaziation process affects language acquisition. Eric Lenneberg(1967) and others suggested that lateralization is a slow process that begins around the age of 2 and is completed around poberty. During this time the child is neurologically assigning functions little by little to one side of the brain or the other; included in these functions, of course, is language. And it has been found that children up to the age of puberty who suffer injury to the left hemisphere are able to relocalize linguistic functions to the right hemisphere, to "relearn" their first language with relatively little impairment. Thomas Scovel(1969) extended these findings to propose a relationship between lateralization and second langauge acquisition. He suggested that the plasticity of the brain prior to puberty enables children to acquire not only their first language but also a second language, and the possibilty it is the very accomplishment of lateralziation that makes it difficult for people to be able ever again to easily acquire fluent control of a second language, or at least to acquire it with Alexander Guiora et al.(1972a) call "authentic" (nativelike) pronunciation. While Lenneberg(1976) contended that lateralization is complete around puberty, Norman Geschwind(1970), among others, suggested a much earlier age. Stephen Krashen(1973) believed that the development of lateralization may be complete around age 5. Krashen's suggestion does

not grossly conflict with research on first language acquisition if one considers "fluency" in the first language to be achieved by age 5. Scovel(1984:1) cautioned against asssuming with Krashen, that lateralization is complete by age 5. "One must be careful to distinguish between 'emergence' of lateralization (at birth, but quite evident at 5) and 'completion' (only evident at about puberty)." If lateralization is not completed until puberty, then one can still construct arguments for a critical period based on lateralization. Obler (1981:58) notes that in second language learning there is significant right hemisphere participation and that "this participation is particularly active during the early stages of learning the second language." Genesee(1982:321) concluded that "there may be greater right hemisphere involvement in language processing in bilinguals who acquire their second language late relative to their first language and in bilinguals who learn it in informal contexts." Psychomotor Considerations An issue closely related to strictly neurological considerations is the role of the psychomotor coordination of the "speech muscles" in second language acquisition, or, more commonly, accent. We can appreciate the fact that given the existence of several hunderd muscles that are used in the articulation of human speech (throat, larynx, mouth, lips, tongue, and other muscles), a tremendous degree of muscular control is required to achieve the fluency of a native speaker of a langauge. At birth the speech muscles are developed only to the extent that the larynx control sustained cries. These speech muscles gradually develop, and control of some complex sounds in certain languages (in English the r and l typical) sometimes is not achieved until after age 5, though virtually complete phonemic control is present in most 5-year-old children. Children who acquired a second language after the age of 5 may have a physical advantage in that phonemic control of second language is physically possible yet that mysterious plasticity is still present. It is important to remeber in all these considerations that pronunciation of a language is not by any means the sole criterion for acquisition, nor is it really the most important one. I like to call this the "Hennry Kissinger effect" in honor of the former U.S. Secretary of State whose German accent was so noticeable yet who was clearly more eloquent than the large majority of native speakers of American English. The acquisition of the communicative and functional purposes of language is far more important. Scovek(1988:186) captures the spirit of this way of looking at second language acquisition:
For me, the acquisition of a new language will remain a phenomenon of natural fascination and mystery, not simply because it is a special skill of such incrediable complexity that it remains one of the greatest achievements of the human mind, but because it also is a testimony of how much we can accomplish within the limitations that nature has placed upon us. We among all animals possess the gift of tongues because we have a time to speak.

Cognitive Considerations
Human cognition develpes rapidly throughout the first 16 years of life and less rapidly after adulthood. Some of these changes are critical, others are more gradual and difficult to detect. Jean Piaget outlines the course of intellectual development in a child through various stages:

The sensorimotor stage from ages 0 to 2 The preoperational stage from ages 2 to 7 The operational stage from ages 7 to 16

these stages with a crucial change from the concrete operational stage to the formal operational stage around the age of 11. The most critical stage for a consideration of first and second language acquisition appears to occur, in Piaget's outline, at puberty. It is here that a person becomes capable of abstraction, of formal thinking which transcends concrete experience and direct perception. Ellen Rosansky(1975:96) offers an explanation noting that initial language acquisition takes place when the child is highly "centered" : "He is not only egocentric at this time, but when faced with a problem he can focus (and then only fleetingly) on one dimension at a time. The lateralization hypothesis may provide another key to cognitive differences between child and adult language acquisition. As the child matures into adulthood, the left hemisphere(which controls the analytical and intellectual functions)becomes more dominant than the right hemisphere(which controls the emotional functions). Another construct that should be considered in examining the cognitive domain is the Piagetian notion of equilibration. Equilibration is defined as "progressive interior organization of knowledge in a stepwise fashion"(Sullivan 1967:12), and is related to the concept of equilibrium. That is, cognition developes as a process of moving from the states of doubt and uncertainty (disequilibrium) to stages of resolution and certainly (equilibrium) and then back to further doubt that is, in time, also resolved. And so the cycle continues. It is conceivable that disequilibrium may provide the key motivation for language acquisition: language interacts with cognition to achieve equilibrium. The final consideration in the cognitive domain is the distinction that Ausbel makes between rote and meaningful learning. Ausbel notes that people of all ages have little need for rote, mechanistic learning that is not related to existing knowledge and experience. Rather most items are acquired by meaningful learning, by anchoring and

relating new items and experiences to knowledge that exists in the cognitive framework. It is myth to contend that children are good rote learners, that they make good use of meaningless repetition and mimicking. We may conclude that the foreign language classroom should not become the locus of excessive rote activity - rote drills, pattern practice without context, reciting rules, and other activities that are not in the context of meaningful communication. Affective Considerations Human beings are emotional creatures. At the heart of all thought and meaning ana action is emotion. As "intellectual" as we would like to think we are, we are influenced by our emotions. The affective domain includes many factors: empathy, self-esteem, extroversion, inhibition, imitation, anxiety, attitudes. Some of these may seem at first rather far removed from language learning, but when you consider the pervasive nature of language, any affective factor can conceivably be relevant to second language learning. A case in point is the role of egocentricity in human development. Very young children are totally egocentric. The world revolves about them, and they see all events as focusing on themselves. Small babies at first do not even distinguish a seperation between themselves and the world around them. A rattle held in baby's hand, for example, is simply an inseperable extension of the baby as long as it is grasped; when the baby drops it or loses sight of it, it ceases to exist. As children grow older they become more aware of themselves, more self-conscious as they seek both to define and understand their self identity. In preadolescence children develope an acute consciousness of themselves as seperate and identifiable entities but ones which, in their still-wavering insecurity, need protecting. They therefore develope inhibitions about this self-identity, fearing to expose to much self-doubt. Alexander Guiora, a researcher in the study of personality variables in second language learning, proposed what he calle the language ego (Guiora et al. 1972b)to account for the identity of a person develops in reference to the language he or she speaks. Guiora suggested that the language ego may account for the difficulties that adults have in learning a second language. The child's ego is dynamic and this stage does not pose a substantial "threat" or inhibition to the ego and adaptation is made relatively easily as long as there are not undue confounding sociocultural factors such as, for example, a damaging attitude toward language or language group at a young age. However, the simultaneous physical, emotional, and cognitive changes of puberty

give rise to a defensive mechanism in which the language ego becomes protective and defensive. It is no wonder, then, that the acquisition of a new language ego is an enormous undertaking, not only for young adolescents but also for an adult who has grown comfortable and secure in his or her own identity and who possesses inhibitions that serve as a wall of defensive protection arount the ego. In type 1 comparisonsof first and second language acquisition, ego development and identification may be relevant factors. Type 2 and 3 comparisons are of course highly relevant. These inhibitions surface in modern language classes where the learner's attempts to speak in a foreign language are often fraught with embarrassment. Another affectively related variable deserves are the role of attitudes in language learning. From the growing body of literature on attitudes, it seems clear that negative attitudes can affect success in learning language. Very young children, however, who are not develped enough cognitively to possess "attitudes" toward races, cultures, ethnic groups, classes of people, and languages are unaffected. Finally, peer pressure is a particularly important variable in Type 2 and Type 3 comparisons. The peer pressure children encounter in language learning is quite unlike what the adult experiences. Children usually have strong constraints upon them to conform. They are told in words, thoughts, and actions that they had better "be like the rest of the kids." Adults tend to tolerate linguistic differences more than children, and therefore errors in speech are more easily excused. Linguistic Considerations It is clear that children learning two languages simultaneously acquire them by the use of similar strategies. Ther are, in essence, learning two languages, and the key to success is in distinguishing separate contexts for two languages. (People who learn second language in such separate context are referred to as coordinate bilinguals; they have two meaning systems, as opposed to compound bilingual who have one meaning system from which both languages operate.) One could refer to children who are acquiring a second language soon after they have begun to learn their first language(say at age 3 or 4), or as late as age 10. For the most part, research confirms that the linguisitic and cognitive processes of second language learning in children are general similar to first language processes. Adults, more cognitively secure, appear to operate from the solid foundation of the first language and thus manifest more interference. But it was pointed out earlier that

adults, too, manifest errors not unlike some of the errors children make, the result of creative perception of the second language and an attempt to discover its rules apart from the rules of first language. The first language, however, may be more readily used to bridge gaps that the adult learner cannot fill by generalization within the second language. In this case wedo well to remember that the first language can be facilitating factor, and not just an interfering factor. In The Classroom: The Audiolingual Method In the first half of this century, the Direct Method did not take hold in United States the way it did in Europe. The highly influential Coleman Report of 1929 (Coleman 1929) had persuaded foreign language teachers that it was impractical to teach oral skills, and that reading should become the focus. Thus schools returned in the 1930s and 1940s to Grammar translation, "the handmaiden if reading" (Bowen et al. 1985). Then World War II broke out and suddenly the United States was thrust into a worldwide conflict, heightening the need Americans to become orally proficient in the languages of both their allies and their enemies. The time was ripe for a language teaching revolution. The U.S. military provided the impetus with funding for special, intensive language courses that focused on the aural/oral skills; these courses came to be known as the Army Specialized Training Program(ASTP), or, more colloquially, the "Army Method". Back to title

Grammar Acquisition and Pedagogy Introduction Many linguists and language teachers believe that pedagogic grammar is an important aspect of second language acquisition (SLA); however, others believe that a foreign grammar cannot be taught explicitly. The first part of this paper will explore how the GrammarTranslation Method has affected foreign language teaching in schools and universities in the United States, in addition to Larsen-Freeman's order of grammatical morpheme acquisition for second language and Krashen's distinction between acquisition and learning. There are several theories that try to explain the difference between grammar acquisition in first and second language as well as the properties of Universal Grammar (UG) that make learning a foreign language possible. The second part of this paper will focus on the current debates and issues in grammar instruction such as deductive versus inductive approaches and the importance of requisite knowledge and familiarity with English grammar. The last part of this paper will be an analysis of the presentation of grammatical rules in seven college-level introductory textbooks of French, Spanish, German, Italian and Russian. I was interested in whether these textbooks provide an adequate explanation of grammar in a learnable order or whether these textbooks fail at teaching grammar overall. Based on my own classroom experiences and years of studying languages, I believe that the current methods of explicit grammar instruction in the classroom are not conducive to learning a foreign language. I believe that these textbooks do not follow the advice or research of linguists regarding grammar acquisition and, in effect, make learning a foreign grammar harder than it needs to be. Teaching Methods Wagner 2

Before research began on language learning, methods used to teach foreign languages in the United States were based on the Classical Method previously employed for teaching Latin and Greek. The studying of classical languages was thought of as "mental gymnastics" and "indispensable to an adequate higher education."1 Students were forced to memorize declension and conjugation patterns, vocabulary lists, and other grammatical rules. Translations and drills remained the only use of the language, while pronunciation and conversational skills were ignored. Opponents of this method maintain that there is no theoretical basis or practicality to the Classical Method (also known as the Grammar-Translation Method). Yet it remains the most popular teaching method because it does not require that teachers be experts or even fluent in the language, and it is the easiest gauge of foreign language ability that can be determined by standardized tests. However, after the United States became involved in World War II, the military realized that Americans needed to be able to speak foreign languages rather than merely read them. The Army Method, later known as the Audio-Lingual Method, was actually based on linguistic theory and focused on oral and aural skills including conversation practice, with little to no exposure to grammar.2 The popularity of this method eventually waned, but several schools today employ techniques that are a combination of the Grammar-Translation and Audio-Lingual methods. Second Language Acquisition During the 1980's, Noam Chomsky introduced a theory of Universal Grammar (UG), which stated that the knowledge of grammar was dependent on two components: principles, properties shared by all languages, and the parameters, the way in which these properties vary.
1 2

Brown, 15. Ibid., 74.

Wagner 3 Controversies abound with the UG model, but it does explain how all natural languages are similar in some respects and how humans are able to learn their first language as well as other languages. UG simplifies the ideas about learning a second language by claiming that "learning the grammar of a [second language] is not so much learning completely new structures, rules, etc as discovering how to set the parameters for the new language."3 Although UG "has left untouched a number of areas which are central to our understanding of the second language learning process," it has also explained and established "some of the facts about second language acquisition."4 This model has greatly contributed to our understanding of the stages that language learners experience for first and second language development. A major aspect of SLA theory is the Natural Order Hypothesis that states the acquisition of grammatical structures proceeds in a predictable order.5 Observations of children learning English as a first or second language indicated that certain grammatical morphemes were acquired before others. Furthermore, distinctions or differences among native language did not seem to interfere with this order of grammatical acquisition (e.g. native speakers of Chinese and German learned English morphemes in relatively the same order). In addition, children and adults had roughly the same order of acquisition. Although Cook refers to this list proposed by Dulay and Burt as a "natural order of difficulty,"6 other researchers such as Krashen and Larsen-Freeman refer to this list as an order of acquisition of morphemes, i.e. the order in which they are actually learned. Yet researchers agree "that it is not necessarily true that things that are easy to use are learnt first and vice versa" and that "an order of acquisition cannot be based solely on an order of difficulty."7

3 4 5 6 7

Cook, 24. Mitchell, 70-1. Ibid., 12. Cook, 14 Ibid., 15

Wagner 4 The Larsen-Freeman order of grammatical morpheme acquisition for learners of English in a natural setting is as follows:8 -ing copula article auxiliary short plural regular past third person singular irregular past long plural possessive In comparison, the Larsen-Freeman order of grammatical morpheme acquisition for learners of English in a structured, classroom setting is as follows: copula auxiliary third person singular -ing regular past irregular past article long plural short plural possessive Another hypothesis of SLA is Krashens Acquisition-Learning Distinction. According to

Krashen, acquisition is more related to the development of first language abilities while learning describes the development of second language abilities.9 Acquisition is a subconscious process of implicit or natural learning. This term is applied to the way in which humans learn their native language without the use of formal rules or instruction. On the other hand, learning describes the conscious study and knowledge of grammatical rules that are most often associated with foreign language education. As seen by the discrepancies between Larsen-Freeman's two orders of
8 9

Krashen, 101. Krashen, 10.

Wagner 5 acquisition, there is indeed a difference between these two manners of obtaining the grammar of a language. Although by analysis of these data, the difference does not seem that extreme. Although English has been the most studied language with respect to acquisition of grammatical morphemes, research on grammar acquisition has also been done on other languages such as Russian and Spanish that confirm the validity of the Natural Order Hypothesis.10 The orders presented by Larsen-Freeman can only be applied to those students learning English, but a basic understanding of a natural order can be applied to other languages as well. This order may not be the same, however, because of the differences in grammatical features of the diverse human languages. Further research needs to be done so that these natural orders can be discovered and utilized in the teaching of foreign languages. Originally, my research was to include these other natural orders, but I was unable to find any research pertaining to the languages I was studying. So I decided to focus instead on the way grammar is taught in general in classrooms and how it is presented in textbooks. Styles of Teaching Grammar

The Inductive presentation of grammar allows students to form generalizations about grammatical rules after oral and written practice of examples given in class. Acquisition may occur quickly and after little exposure with this approach; however, some students are too easily confused if the rules are not presented directly before practice is required.11 Those students benefit more from the Deductive approach, in which the teacher presents the grammatical patterns and then the student is given ample time to become familiar with them. Whereas the Inductive approach works best with regular patterns, the Deductive approach works best with irregular patterns, "for these by their very nature cannot be discovered through analogy."12 The
10 11 12

Krashen, 14. Allen, 90. Ibid., 85.

Wagner 6 Deductive approach does save time for the teacher and the class; nevertheless, a major drawback is the tedious and technical presentation of grammar that may bore or frustrate the student if he doesn't understand the rules. Although these two basic approaches to teaching grammar seem to correlate to Krashen's acquisition vs. learning, Krashen states that both approaches are indeed learning and not acquisition.13 With Inductive learning, students focus on form and not meaning. The rules are learned consciously and the student analyzes the structural components of the message instead of the message itself. Conversational courses often employ the Inductive approach with little focus on the grammatical rules, although students still do learn the rules and are consciously aware of them. This fundamental difference between Krashen's acquisition and the teaching approach of induction is often overlooked by those who employ the Inductive or Implicit method to emulate native language acquisition in the foreign language classroom.

Problems of Teaching Explicit Grammar Similarly, opponents of teaching explicit grammar maintain that this method only teaches about the language and not the actual language itself. As Omaggio stated, this method "sends a clear message that the focus of the lesson is on talking about the language rather than on talking in the language."14 Students learn the linguistics of the language but not how to communicate easily or effectively. They may be consciously aware of the rules and how to use them most of the time, at least in writing, but they are unable to speak with any real fluency. "Use of the conscious grammar is limited to easily learned, late-acquired rules, simple morphological additions that do not make an overwhelming contribution to communicating the speaker or writer's message."15
13 14 15

Krashen, 113. Omaggio, 419. Krashen, 112.

Wagner 7 Therefore, as Krashen maintains, it is unfair to "emphasize accuracy on communicatively unessential, late acquired items in the beginning language classes, with students who are unable to understand the simplest message in the second language."16 Emphasis should be put on learning to understand and communicate effectively in the language, rather than on analyzing texts for their grammatical value or writing styles. If students are unable to say or write the simplest phrases in the target language, they should not be expected to read and analyze literature in the target language either. Yet the natural progression in foreign language education is from courses that focus on basic grammar and conversation to courses that require intellectual and sound analyses of foreign literature, although students may not even be prepared to do so in their native language. Most students do not do well in these courses because they lack a basic

understanding and comprehension of the grammatical structures, as well as basic vocabulary, of the language. Requiring students to be fluent in the target language before studying texts written completely in that language would decrease frustration and dissatisfaction with those students' foreign language education. Writing in a foreign language is often easier than speaking for those who have learned grammar explicitly, yet teachers still expect students to perform perfectly in speech. There is a basic difference between competence and performance however, that teachers need to be more aware of. The conscious knowledge of a grammatical rule has no direct relationship to the speaker's ability to use it in free speech, especially not for a nervous student who is forced to speak in front of the class or who is being evaluated and judged for a grade. There are cases of students who write a foreign language with near-fluent abilities, but who also make several mistakes while speaking. Krashen attributes this to his Monitor and Input Hypotheses which state that students make corrections only when they are consciously aware of them (such as in
16

Ibid., 112.

Wagner 8 writing) and that students should not be required to speak in the target language until they feel comfortable to do so (ie. they have acquired enough "comprehensible input"). Furthermore, Krashen's fifth hypothesis, Affective-Filter, claims that students who experience low anxiety and high self-confidence will have a greater success at learning a foreign language.17 Second Language Acquisition theories of grammatical acquisition are often based on simplicity and frequency of occurrence, yet "it is not at all the case that the more linguistically simple an item is, the earlier it is acquired. Some very 'simple' rules may be among the last to be

acquired."18 An example of an apparently simple rule is the possessive -s in English. Yet in both of Larsen-Freeman's orders of acquisition, the possessive remains lateacquired. In addition, just because some grammatical forms occur often does not mean they will be easy to learn or teach. For example, verbs with separable prefixes are very common in German and Dutch, but they are not easy for students to learn, so they are not taught until near the end of the language course. Another facet of foreign language learning that needs to be addressed is the hierarchy of difficulty "by which a teacher or linguist could make a prediction of the relative difficulty of a given aspect of the target language."19 Two levels that present particular problems with learning foreign grammar are underdifferentiation and overdifferentiation. With underdifferentiation, "an item in the native language is absent in the target language."20 For example, the present tense has three forms in English, but sometimes only one in other languages (such as French and German). On the other hand, overdifferentiation is the opposite, i.e. an item exists in the target language but not in the native language. The case system markers for nouns are barely existent in English, but thrive in Germanic and Slavic languages. This hierarchy attempts to make possible the predictions of how easy or difficult it will be to learn a certain foreign language.
17 18 19 20

Brown, 278-9. Krashen, 91. Brown, 209. Ibid., 209.

Wagner 9 Yet another feature of foreign language learning that classes and textbooks seem to ignore is the importance of the knowledge of native grammar before attempting to learn a foreign grammar. If students do not know the jargon particular to grammar in their native language, they

will not know the vocabulary in the target language either. Basics of the native language or of grammar in general, should always supplement and precede the explanation of foreign grammar. In addition, requisite knowledge of earlier grammatical rules needs to be reinforced. However, textbooks often do not have the space to review earlier rules before presenting new ones.21 Therefore, ample class time must be devoted to this task. Analysis of Textbooks Because I have had years of experience with studying foreign languages at the secondary school and university level, I chose to analyze several introductory textbooks of foreign languages used in the classroom. I was interested in seeing if the order of grammatical rules presented in these textbooks correlated to what linguists believe to be helpful and practical for second language acquisition. I chose seven textbooks to analyze (two Spanish, two French, one German, one Italian and one Russian). All were written for the university classroom and most were published within the last decade. All of the textbooks present grammar in the order of easy to hard rules, which makes teaching and learning easier, but actually using the language more difficult. For example, the gender and number of nouns, the present tense of regular verbs, and direct and indirect objects are given before the past or future tenses or the conditional or subjunctive moods of verbs. The order of the tenses of the verbs progresses from present to past to future. However, some of the compound tenses are taught first (such as the present perfect in French and Italian) because they are used more often in conversation than writing. Overall, it seems as though the textbooks
21

Allen, 82.

Wagner 10 rarely take into consideration the frequency of use of certain grammatical rules that native

speakers employ. Some of these common rules, such as irregular plural nouns in Italian or the future tense in Spanish, are relegated to the last few chapters.22 Surprisingly, Panorama does not even include the future tense of verbs, although this is generally covered in a first year language program.23 Additionally, all of the textbooks include present tense conjugations of irregular verb forms throughout the material. Most of these verbs are very common in the languages and occur often in speech and writing, but some are not introduced until the end of the textbook and even then, they are still in the simple present tense. This is more prevalent with the Romance language textbooks, but the Germanic and Slavic textbooks have problems as well concerning the case system. Deutsch Na Klar! and teach the case system in the order of most simple to most difficult case to learn. The German order includes Nominative, Accusative, Dative and Genitive, whereas Russian begins with the Prepositional case, then progresses to the Accusative, Genitive and Dative and switches back and forth among the cases as new material is presented.24 Yet all of the cases, with the exception of Genitive, are used quite often and in basic speech and writing. A major problem with the Spanish books is the order in which the Imperative mood is introduced. The formal commands are taught first, and the informal/familiar commands are presented a few chapters later. The reasoning is that students will not need to use the informal commands when travelling or speaking to other people. However, students use the informal forms of address with other students, as well as with children, animals, and others with whom
Prego and Puntos de Partida does not include the future tense of verbs either, but there are two books in the first year series.
22 23

There are actually 6 cases in the Russian language, but because I only reviewed Book 1 of the series, I do not know the order of the rest of the cases.
24

Wagner 11 they have a close relationship. In fact, it is becoming more and more common in languages that use the formal vs. informal distinction to use the informal for everyone.25 None of the textbooks analyzed reviewed grammar previously learned or explained the corresponding English grammar rules. Direct translations were not given for verb conjugations, so that students must figure out for themselves that "ich spiele" in German can mean "I play," "I do play" or "I am playing" in English, unless the teacher explains this rule. Moreover, many of the paragraphs and passages in each chapter were completely in the target language with little to no translations into English. Although the directions to the exercises were always in English, for the most part, all other text was in the target language beyond the students comprehension level. Conclusion Based on several semesters of foreign language study, I do not believe that current methods of teaching grammar in the classroom are sufficient enough for acquiring the abilities to survive in a second language. Textbooks teach grammar inadequately by only focusing on the simple rules by which they hope students will not be confused. Real world knowledge of a foreign language is ignored in favor of written techniques that will only encourage the student to read. The Classical Method is still very much alive in the foreign language educational system, although it has never proven itself to be a practical or successful method of learning a foreign language.
Swedish is an excellent example of this form of progression. Today, it is actually rare to use the formal form of address (Ni) except in extremely formal situations. The informal form (du) is generally used for all meanings of you.
25

Wagner 12

Works Cited Allen, Edward David and Rebecca M. Valette. Classroom Techniques: Foreign Languages and English as a Second Language. San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanich, 1977. Blanco, Jose A, et al. Panorama: Introduccion a la lengua espanola. Boston: Vista Higher Learning, 2002. Brown, H. Douglas. Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. 4th ed. New York: Addison Wesley Longman, 2000. Cook, Vivian. Second Language Learning and Language Teaching. New York: Routledge, Chapman and Hall, 1991. Di Donato, Robert, et al. Deutsch Na Klar! An Introductory German Course. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1995. Heileman, L. Kathy, et al. Voila! An Introduction to French. 4th ed. United States: Heinle and Heinle, 2001. Knorre, Marty, et al. Puntos de Partida: An Invitation to Spanish. 6th ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2001. Krashen, Stephen D. Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. New York: Prentice Hall, 1987. Lazzarino, Graziana, et al. Prego! An Invitation to Italian. 4th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1995. Mitchell, Rosamond and Florence Myles. Second Language Learning Theories. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998. Omaggio, Alice C. Teaching Language in Context: Proficiency-Oriented Instruction. Boston: Heinle and Heinle, 1986. Wagner 13 Robin, Richard, et al. : A Basic Course in Russian . Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1994. Valdman, Albert, et al. Scenes et Sejours. Glenview: Scott, Foresman and Company, 1981