A tremendous amount of muscle control is needed to achieve native like fluency of a language. A child’s muscles are very flexible, having an elastic quality. From infancy a child gradually develops these muscles to the point where s\he reaches native like fluency in L1. In Type A comparison, the adult L2 learner (SLL) will have more difficulty in obtaining native like fluency because their muscles have already been trained to respond to their L1, which may have different phonological rules and use different articulators than the L2. In other words, their muscles will have lost its elasticity. It is generally assumed that an adult SLL will not acquire native like pronunciation in the L2 (Mangubhai, 2004).
As mentioned earlier, there are two comparisons possible for the Type B relationship. In the first comparison, when L1 and L2 are being learned at the same time, the psychomotor factor is irrelevant. In the second comparison, when L2 is being acquired at a later age (i.e. 8-10), near native-like pronunciation is possible provided that the teacher’s native language is the child’s L2 (Mangubhai, 2004).
It is important to remember that pronunciation is not the only criterion for language acquisition, nor is it the most important. There are persons like Jean Chretien, the former Prime Minister of Canada, whose pronunciation is far from native-like, yet he can understand and speak it far better than many native speakers (Note: Jean Chretien’s first language is French. He has a strong French accent, which is accentuated by a speech impediment).
Critical Period Hypothesis and Neurological Considerations
The Critical Period Hypothesis (CPH) claims there is a biologically determined time period in which language can be acquired and that after this time period language acquisition becomes more difficult. According to Fromkin (2003, p.341), this critical age is true for many species, such as ducks. In this case Fromkin points out that, within a specific period of time (9 to 21 hours) after hatching, a duckling will follow the first thing it sees moving, whether it be another duck or not. This is not considered to be a conscious decision, but rather something that is biologically activated. The age, at which this critical period occurs in humans, and whether it varies from person to person, are still being debated.
This hypothesis links with neurological research on what is termed brain ‘lateralization’. This research suggests that the two halves of the brain are assigned different functions as the brain matures. Language is thought to be controlled by the left side of the brain.
While much could be said about where language is stored in the brain, a more important question for the researcher is when this lateralization takes place and how it affects language acquisition. Some researchers, like Lenneberg (1967), say it is completed around the age of puberty, while others like Krashen (1973) suggest a younger age, like five. Comparisons of Type B hinge upon which of these theories we accept. Lenneberg’s theory can be backed by evidence, like children being able to relearn language with little difficulty after a head injury. At the same time, Krashen’s ‘early age’ is also possible if we consider native-like fluency or pronunciation as the key parameter, since it is usually mastered around this age. I say pronunciation or fluency here because it is controlled by neurological processes resulting in psychomotor responses, whereas other aspects of language acquisition – syntax, morphology and lexicon – are not (Scovel, 1988).
Studies by Patkowski (1980) and Johnson and Newport (1989) on Type C group’s second language learning ability showed that, of migrants arriving in the United States, the age of arrival was significant. Those who arrived before the age of puberty tended to out perform those who arrived after the age of puberty. This supports Lenneberg’s theory.
There are many other ways besides lateralization in which the CPH has been debated, in both strong and weak forms. The weak forms suggest that there is a gradual movement from what is possible to what is not possible in language acquisition, as opposed to the very specific ages theorized above.
Not all researchers agree that there is a critical age and have backed their belief with examples, of adults who have managed to succeed in areas of SLA, that the CPH argues only children will be successful in. It is not the point of this paper to pursue this.
In summary, we can say that the Critical Period Hypothesis suggests that the older the second language learner (SLL) is the more difficult it will be for s/he to acquire a new language, compared to that of a child. It’s sort of like setting Jell-O with bits of fruit in it; when you first mix the fruit and Jell-O, the fruit can be easily moved around, but as the Jell-O begins to set, over time, it becomes more difficult to manipulate the fruit.
Cognitive Factors
Many language researchers, like Jean Piaget, see language development as a part of the cognitive development of a child. That is, as the child’s brain develops, so does his/her linguistic ability. Piaget (Piaget & Inhelder, 1966) outlines the course of a child’s intellectual development through the following stages:
- the sensori-motor stage ( ages 0 to 2 )
- the preoperational stage ( ages 2 to 7 )
- the concrete operational stage ( ages 7 to 11 )
- the formal operational stage ( age 11 to puberty )
From a cognitive perspective, the adult learner in Type A comparison is at an advantage, having developed all the skills necessary to learn a language. Yet we know that adults appear to have more difficulty in acquiring a second language compared to the child learner.
The most critical stage in considering L1 and L2 acquisition in Piaget’s list above would appear to be the formal operational stage. At the latter part of this stage the child becomes capable of formal thinking or abstraction, like an adult. We may postulate whether or not this formal way of thinking is a key to why adults have more difficulty with second language acquisition. An adult may feel very frustrated in not being able to use the skills they have developed from their L1 to express their thoughts in L2. A close acquaintance of mine, who is a wonderful orator in his L1, has expressed on several occasions his feeling of shame and humiliation in having to ask his children to explain something in the L2 for him, even though he has been learning the L2 as long or longer than them. How is it that the child can pick up the language quicker? Would adapting a simpler child like approach to learning help the adult acquire the L2 much easier?
When comparing Type B learners at different ages, researchers claim that a child at the formal operational stage is a better learner of the L2 syntax and morphology (Mangubhai, 2004) than the younger child. This is likely due to their ability to think formally. Ultimately, though, the younger a child is, when s/he begins to learn the second language, the more proficient s/he will be in the L2 (Larsen-Freeman and Long, 1991).
The situation for Type C learners is similar to that mentioned above, if we consider children at puberty to now possess the cognitive abilities of an adult. A number of reasons have been suggested as to why the adult L2 learner loses out in the end. The following have been put forward by Mangubhai (2004, p.1.18):
- adults are too committed to other aspects of their lives, thus no time for input
- adults are more aware of whether they are acquiring/learning the SL than children might be
- adults might have a tendency to overanalyze the language rather than accepting it as it is (initially at any rate).
Linguistic Factors
As mentioned in the last section, an adult SL learner has an ‘advantage’ over a child L1 learner in that s/he has already acquired a language. I use ‘advantage’ in quotes here because in the context of second language acquisition (SLA) it’s really not an advantage. The knowing of a first language may be considered an advantage if it helps the SL learner understand something in the L2 that s/he couldn’t determine by generalizing with the L2.
Early researchers thought the impact of L1 on SLA was considerable. Adults do have interference from their L1, but it is much less than originally proposed. Brown (1973) suggests that the errors are not unlike those made by children acquiring L1. That is, many of the errors may be due to the SL learner attempting to use the rules of L2 incorrectly, apart from the rules of L1.
In regards to child and adult SLLs, studies have shown that there is a staged learning by each, just as it occurs in L1 acquisition. Brown (1973), among others, has observed these stages in various settings.
Affective Factors
Though we are intellectual beings, we are also emotion beings. Our emotions play an important role in our daily lives and also our language development. This can be seen in the youngest language learners to the oldest.
Our emotions or the factors that affect our language development include: self-esteem, anxiety, attitudes, etc… You may wonder how these factors play a role in language development. Well, let’s look at the word egocentricity or self-centeredness and how it relates to language development or acquisition.
Young children are very self-centered. They seem themselves as the center of the world with everything and everyone revolving around them. This view changes as they mature. They begin to become more self-conscious and try to discover their own uniqueness. By the age of puberty, they are aware of who they are and very insecure about how others see them. Thus, applying this to L2 learning, we could assume the pubescent or young adult L2 learner would be uncomfortable with making mistakes. We could apply this to the older adult as well. A result of this insecurity or awareness of others is that the L2 development could be hindered. Very young children, on the other hand, do not have this problem. They see no wrong in anything they do and have no concerns as to how others may perceive them.
Summary
Observing a child learn a first language with ease and seeing how difficult it is for the average adult to learn a second language, as resulted in much of the research presented in this paper. Many parameters for the comparison/contrast of first and second language acquisition have been looked at. Arguments and hypothesis about each have been presented. Similarities and differences have been observed. Though many points are still debatable, many things have been learned to help us understand how language is acquired and how we, as teachers, might be able to help those acquiring a second language.
References
Brown, R. (1973). A First Language. Cambridge, Mass.: Havard University Press.
Fromkin, V., Blair, D., & Collins, P. (2000). An Introduction to Language (4th ed.). Marrickville, NSW: Harcourt.
Johnson, J.S., & Newport, E.L. (1989). Critical period effects in second language learning: the influence of maturational state on the acquisition of English as a second language. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 60-99.
Krashen, S. (1973). Lateralization, language learning, and the critical period: some new evidence. Language Learning, 26(1), 63-74.
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Long, M.H. (1991). An introduction to second language research. New York: Longman.
Lenneberg, E.H. (1967). Biological foundations of language. New York: Wiley.
Mangubhai, F. (2004). LIN8001 Principles of Second Language Learning: Study Book. Toowoomba: University of Southern Queensland.
Patkowski, M.S. (1980). The sensitive period for the acquisition of syntax in a second language. Language Learning, 30, 449-472.
Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1966). The psychology of the child. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Scovel, T. (1988). A time to speak: a psycholinguistic enquiry into the critical period for human speech. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.
