UNIVERSIDAD AUTNOMA DE YUCATN

LICENCIATURA EN ENSEANZA DEL IDIOMA INGLS

FACULTAD DE EDUCACIN

First and Second Language Acquisition

Psycholinguistics and Language Learning
Professor Myrna Balderas Garza

JUAN CARLOS SOLS RIVERA

5TH

SEMESTER

November 4th 2014

FIRST AND SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

Before delving into a thorough comparison between the theories regarding first
and second language acquisition, I would like to quote Pinker, who in his work The
Language Instinct (1994) came up with a neat definition of language.
Language is a complex, specialized skill, which develops in the child
spontaneously, without conscious effort or formal instruction, is deployed
without awareness of its underlying logic, is qualitatively the same in every
individual, and is distinct from more general abilities to process information or
behave intelligently (p. 18, in Brown, 2007, p. 6).
This definition serves a simple purpose: clarifying the subject matter, regardless
of the way it is acquired or learned, we need to know the issue we are addressing. Thus,
having understood that language is a complex skill that starts developing in childhood
let alone the exceptions, we shall also define the two other main concepts: First
language and second language, which for practical purposes are going to be referred to
as L1 and L2 respectively. L1 refers to the first language that a child learns [as pointed
by Pinker in the above-mentioned definition of language] (Gass, 2013, p. 4).
Regarding L2:
L2 Can refer to any language learned after the L1 has been learned,
regardless of whether it is the second, third, fourth, or fifth language [] both in
a classroom situation, as well as in more natural exposure situations (Gass,
2010, p. 5).
By looking deeper at what Pinker (1994) included in his definition [] without
conscious effort or formal instruction [] I assume that under Pinkers sight
language is being regarded as L1 and not L2, in that L2 does require a conscious effort
and/or formal instruction. Here we have the first and most general distinction between
the referents of these two terms. Another important and most obvious difference is the
1

FIRST AND SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

tremendous cognitive and affective contrast between adults and children in the case of
adult second language learning (Brown, 2007).
Even though first language acquisition (FLA) differs greatly from second
language acquisition (SLA) i.e. the process of learning another language after the
native language has been learned (Gass, 2013, p. 5) or else SLA research would be
merely a subfield of language acquisition research rather than a field of its own (Cook,
2010) there still are some features shared by both of them.
At the beginning, the study of child language acquisition drew the attention of
language researchers, who started drawing inferences and analogies for first and second
language learning. Among the earliest are the behavioral approaches, which were
greatly supported by the behaviorist school of thought. Such an approach claimed that
children came into the world with a tabula rasa, which is Latin for a blank slate. By
this they meant that childrens minds were empty, without notions of language but they
are later shaped by their environment and conditioned through reinforcement (Brown,
2007). Relevant figures, such as Chomsky, highly criticized Skinners Verbal Behavior.
As a result, some psychologists attempted to broaden the base of such behavioral theory
thus proposing modified theoretical positions e.g. the mediation theory. This claimed
that a linguistic stimulus would elicit a response that is self-stimulating (Brown, 2007),
but was not enough since several questions remained unresolved.
Along came the nativists, asserting that language acquisition is innately
determined, i.e. we are born with a genetic capacity that predisposes us to a systematic
perception of language around us [] (Brown, 2007, p. 28). Chomsky, who had
previously written about Skinners ideas, supported this theory by claiming the
existence of innate properties, which helped explain the childs mastery of a native
language in such a short time. It was not until recent times that nativist researchers

FIRST AND SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

continued addressing the issue and came up with a genre of child language acquisition
research that has come to be known as universal grammar (UG), assuming that all
human beings are genetically equipped to acquire language (Brown, 2007). This was an
expansion of the language acquisition device (LAD) that had been previously proposed
by other nativists. It is here that L1 and L2 share one aspect: UG may influence learning
even though having L1 as a basis for SLA they both aid themselves with this
(Vanegas, 2008). The only difference is that for FLA the basis for learning is UG alone.
Another similarity still concerning UG is to do with the kinds of discoveries that have
been made regarding the system of child language. Such a system is systematic at any
stage in that the child is constantly forming hypotheses and then testing them in speech
and comprehension (Brown, 2007). Therefore, making and testing hypotheses can be
seen as making errors, which is part of learning, and both processes (FLA & SLA)
happen to feature that same trait. Vanegas (2008) explains how error incidence does not
diminish as learners go from the early stages of learning through the subsequent ones
(what Brown called systematic):
In the initial stage of learning, learners may use chunks of language without
breaking them down or processing them as independent units. In later stages,
they may make new errors as they begin to process the parts of each chunk
according to the rules of their language system. For example, a learner may start
out using the correct form of an irregular verb as part of a language chunk, but
later overgeneralize and place a regular affix on that same verb.
The nativist approaches were not supposed to last forever and so they did.
Further behavioral approaches challenged the position of the nativist approaches.
Emergentism language complexity comes from simple processes exposed to a complex
environment thus suggesting that there is no inborn UG (Brown, 2007). Nevertheless,

FIRST AND SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

the nativist framework did contribute to the understanding of FLA. So far, both schools
of thought structural and generative linguistics had left the essence of language
unattended. This is where the functional approaches come along.
The nativist framework generated substantial knowledge on the generative rules.
However, these were abstract, formal, explicit, logical and dealt specifically with the
forms of language instead of the functional levels of meaning constructed through social
interaction i.e. functions are the interactive purposes within a social (pragmatic) context
accomplished with the forms (Brown, 2007). Thanks to Lois Bloom and her discovery
of the underlying structures of child language (as opposed to the superficial ones
proposed by pivot grammars under the nativist approach) so the forms largely depended
on the social context and thus a single phrase could mean several things depending on
the context. Moreover, Piaget contributed by affirming that what children learn about
language is determined by what they already know about the world, this altogether with
what Slobin demonstrated on semantic complexity over structural complexity, helps to
show another relevant similarity between L1 and L2 in that both processes require the
learner to use context clues and prior knowledge (Vanegas, 2008), since what
[language learners] know will determine what they learn about the code for both
speaking and understanding messages (Brown, 2007, p. 34).
Nonetheless, language goes beyond cognitive thought. The functional
perspective also comprised a second aspect: a social constructivist emphasis, just as
Holzman (1987, p. 119, in Brown, 2007, p. 34) included in her reciprocal model of
language development a reciprocal behavioral system operates between the languagedeveloping [language learner] and the competent [adult] language user in a socializingteaching-nurturing role. Other studies such as those carried out by Budwig (1995) and
Kuczaj (1984) centered on the function of language in discourse and addressed certain

FIRST AND SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

issues or questions such as what do children know and learn about talking with others?
[] The interaction between hearer and speaker? [the] communicative and pragmatic
function[s of language] (Brown, 2007, p. 34). This allows an additional comparison
between a L1 and L2 trait: interaction. Learners in both situations need
comprehensible input and output opportunities to learn language in context in order to
increase their proficiency as well as interaction to comprehend language (Vanegas,
2008).
Among other similarities is the importance of age for both L1 and L2, as this
is an important variable affecting proficiency. Thomas Scovel (1988, in Brown, 2007)
cited evidence for a sociobiological critical period in various species of mammals and
birds, which allowed Neapolitan et al. (1988, in Brown, 2007) to draw analogies
between the acquisition of birdsong and human language acquisition.
In conclusion, schools of thought along with language learning approaches have
delved into the essence of language by attempting to unveil the hidden mechanism that
permits humans to develop language in such a particular fashion. Such approaches
comprised several important characters whose relevance to language acquisition is
significant for they worked in theories that allowed other in many cases to broaden
certain ideas to give better explanation to certain phenomena. Although there are no
ultimate FLA (or SLA) theories, what has been made so far is good enough to give
explanation to several phenomena and address numerous issues on language acquisition.
Moreover, it is due to these breakthrough discoveries and theories that it was possible to
show how close and at the same time far are L1 and L2 from each other. These two
processes (FLA and SLA) share several aspects, though it would be better stated that
differences are still many more than similarities, but at least these processes do share
some common traits.

FIRST AND SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

References
Brown, H. D. (2007). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching (5 ed., pp. 180).
San Francisco: Pearson Longman.
Cook, V. (2010). The Relationship Between First and Second Language learning
Revisited. Retrieved from
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/vivian.c/Writings/Papers/L1&L22008.htm
Gass, S. M. (2013). Second Language Acquisition: An Introductory Course (4 ed.). New
York: Routledge.
Vanegas, C. (2008). Similarities and Differences Between First and Second Language
Acquisition. Retrieved from
http://multilingualism.pbworks.com/w/page/21913433/Similarities%20and%20
Differences%20between%20First%20and%20Second%20Language%20Acquisi
tion