Why Second Language Acquisition Is Fundamentally Different from First - Essay Example

Why Second Language Acquisition is Fundamentally Different from First Language Acquisition Introduction When people acquire a first language, they often do so as children and this occurs at a relatively fast pace. However, the same cannot be said of second languages as most learners find it difficult to acquire them. These difficulties arise from the unique characteristics of second languages; psycholinguistic mechanisms, age and instruction-giving criteria explain why L2 acquisition is problematic. Psycholinguistic mechanisms Certain psycholinguistic mechanisms explain why second language learners may struggle to acquire the language. Scholars postulate that a universal grammar exists for all language learners (Marinis, 2003). Children often acquire a first language easily because they have access to this universal grammar. Furthermore, children are not furnished with all the information needed to speak accurately, yet they often do so (Marinis, 2003). It appears as though the brain has certain features that make it relatively easy to make sense of syntactic features in language and apply them in speech (Nunan, 1999). The poverty of stimulus hypothesis states that children do not learn all the rules of a language but still acquire it (Hulstijn, 2007). On the other hand, second language learners may have universal grammar but could be unable to reset its parameters in order to apply it in the second language (Nunan, 1999). This often causes a number of them to transfer structures from the first to the second language. When those transfers become permanent, then the inaccuracies in L2 speech will become fossilised (Hulstijn, 2007). This implies that second language learners will not report any continued improvements in their speech as the transfers they made now become a regular part of their speech (Hulstijn, 2007). A processing sequence occurs during the course of speaking or reading in any language (Grodner & Gibson, 2005). Therefore, second language learners do not just have to learn about the grammatical rules governing a language, but they also have to master processing strategies for that language (Hulstijn, 2007). More often than not, these processing methods may differ from the ones in their native tongue (Grodner & Gibson, 2005). Failure to become fluent in the second language can occur even if the speaker knows the grammatical rules because issues concerning processing methods in the second language may obstruct them (Grodner & Gibson, 2005). In psycholinguistic mechanisms, analyses have shown that sometimes a lack of consensus on what it means to be accurate may delay acquisition (Hulstijn, 2007). A person is competent in language if they have grammatical skills, social linguistic capability and strategic abilities. However, few languages have a universal dialect; so if a second language learner opts to learn a dialect spoken by minorities, he or she may be disregarded as linguistically deficient (Hulstijn, 2007). Different stages of development exist in any sort of language. However, even in the same language, different stages will be undergone depending on the speaker’s mother tongue, their age as well as their learning stages (Marinis, 2003). L2 learners differ from L1 learners because their developmental stages are interrupted by a range of several other factors (Marinis, 2003). Age A starting age exists for all language acquisition processes since children acquire first languages at more or less the same time. This period usually coincides with a certain development area of the child’s life. Since this aspect is biological, then second language learners may have difficulties in reconciling the differences. Many L2 speakers start learning the target languages at an older stage, which puts them at an advantage (Nunan, 1999). It is also postulated that a critical period exists for the acquisition of a language (Hulstijn, 2007). Only a small opportunity is available for a person to natively acquire a language. If this period is exceeded, the person may speak the language but not sound like its native speakers (Hulstijn, 2007). Children require language input during this critical period in order to speak their first language (Marinis, 2003). However, if they do not get input, then they will never be able to acquire language effectively. Most adults have already bypassed this critical period, so it is almost certain that they could never be as proficient as first language speakers (Hulstijn, 2007). During this critical period, outcomes may vary depending on the factors that affect the concerned speaker (Nunan, 1999). Biological issue play more of a primary role than socio-psychological factors when learning a first language. Conversely, social –psychological factors become more significant after the critical period (Nunan, 1999). This means that second language adult learners are more susceptible to environmental factors, which cause more complications (Nunan, 1999). For instance, the quality of input to which the learner is exposed makes a difference in the rate and fluency of L2 spoken (Hulstijn, 2007). Furthermore, it is an established fact that the attributes of a learner have a significant part to play in acquisition of a second language. Sometimes even motivational factors may come into play as an L2 learner may be motivated to acquire the language in order to be respected in the community or get a job (Hulstijn, 2007). Lack of motivators can enhance psychological factors that eventually undermine acquisition of the second language (Nunan, 1999). Teaching children and adults presents different affective factors in language classes. Adults tend to encounter barriers that are almost absent among children. For instance, adults tend to feel embarrassed about speaking a second language. They may be self conscious about their accent or the way they form sentences (Nunan, 1999). Alternatively, if an adult has biases against the second language culture, this could lead to delayed acquisitions (Hulstijn, 2007). All these issues are unproblematic for children as they rarely have such inhibitions. Since second language learning occurs at an older age when these barriers are present, it is bound to be more difficult than first language learning (Nunan, 1999). Instruction-giving criteria Morpheme order strategies explain why certain L2 learners may experience difficulties in learning the language. Studies indicate that grammatical acquisition follows a particular order (Grodner & Gibson, 2005). Furthermore language learning does not move from not knowing a grammatical rule to perfectly understanding and applying that rule (Grodner & Gibson, 2005). Therefore, even if a teacher explains a certain rule, it takes a much longer time for the student to apply that rule in communication (Nunan, 1999). Sometimes learners may take the time to construct the rule in their head before they can use it. The problem with classroom instruction, which is the preferred mode for second language teaching, is that morpheme order challenges tend to be short-lived (Marinis, 2003). They tend to be effective in making speakers more accurate but do not give the advantage that a natural setting provides (Lord, 2008). Furthermore, first languages can influence how effective morpheme order proficiency occurs. Russian speakers often have difficulties in mastering the use of articles in English because their language lacks these language elements (Lord, 2008). Their difficulties indicate that a process of grammatical acquisition exists, and can be extended if certain factors in instruction are ignored (Lord, 2008). Explaining a grammatical rule is simply not sufficient to teach a second language; students need a natural setting in which to apply the new rule. However, so many instructors rarely offer this opportunity (Lord, 2008). Conscious learning versus subconscious acquisition could also explain why L2 learners tend to find the process more problematic than L1 learner(Nunan, 1999) . If conscious learning occurs within a classroom setting only, it is likely that people will get more knowledge about the language but they will not become fluent (Nunan, 1999). Conversely, if subconscious acquisition occurs, then it is likely that a person will acquire language in a more natural setting. Those individuals are likely to become more fluent. Most second language acquisition processes occur consciously thus making it difficult for learners to gain proficiency (Marinis, 2003). Interaction and acquisition play a significant role in the acquisition of any language. Most second languages happen to be foreign languages that are not spoken in their respective communities (Lord, 2008). For instance, a person learning Chinese in Ghana is bound to have difficulties because no room exists for interaction and acquisition of the language. Conversely, the same Ghanaian living in China would find second language acquisition relatively easy because it is occurring within a natural setting (Lord, 2008). Conclusion Second-language acquisition is more complex than first language acquisition owing to some peculiarities that compound the former process. First, unlike first languages, second languages require a different arrangement of universal grammar, which may compound the matter. Speakers could also struggle with interference from external forces in each language stages. Age plays a critical role in L2 acquisition as well; critical periods exist for acquiring language but most adult second language learners have already passed this stage. Teaching adults is also highly challenging compared to children because adults struggle to overcome psychological barriers like shame. Finally, instruction an acquisition processes also compound this outcome. Most classrooms use unnatural settings that encourage conscious learning and little interaction. References Grodner, D. & Gibson, E. (2005). Some consequences of the serial nature of linguistic input. Cognitive Science, 29(2), 261–290. Hulstijn, J. (2007). Fundamental issues in the study of second language acquisition. NY: John Benjamins Publishing. Lord, G. (2008). Second language acquisition and first language phonological modification. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings. Marinis, T. (2003). Psycholinguistic techniques in second language acquisition research. Second Language Research, 19(2), 144-161. Nunan, D. (1999). Second language teaching and learning. Boston: Heinle and Heinle Publishers. Read More