Similarities And Differences Between L1 And L2 Acquisition Part 1

It is certainly no overstatement to say that both psychologists and linguists have been keen to emphasise the differences between first and second language acquisition, fostering such controversial claims of an "inborn language capacity" for gaining a first language, whilst realising a second language is a "gift" for a select few. However, recent research has shown that far from being disparate processes that there are striking similarities between the attainment of a mother-tongue and a non-native language. Both rely on the interaction between nature and nurture; both are affected by the maturation level of the agent, and both require active participation from the learner. This essay surveys the recent critical work on monolingual and bilingual achievement in infants, and adult second language learning to illustrate their remarkable likeness in processes of mastering a language.

L1 acquisition

First language acquisition has been firmly attributed to nature, that the process is unstoppable, effortless, and the standard reached infallible. The keenest advocate of this idea is Chomsky, who claimed that language is an innate ability meaning that little input is required (Chomsky, 2006). Hence, children acquire language without being formally taught, and by the novelty of their output. Chomsky, therefore, concludes that humans have a Universal Grammar (UG).

Large amounts of evidence seems to support this "nativist" approach. Perhaps the most convincing is the regularity by which children acquire their L1. Research by the neuropsychologist Eric H. Lenneberg (another advocate for L1 being an inborn skill) illustrates the uniformity of L1 acquisition across children (Lenneberg 1967 cited in Tserdanelis and Wong, 2004). Indeed, the regularity of children's verbal development, and its intrinsic biological underpinnings, is well demonstrated by babies who were physically unable to make sounds because of intubation. As soon as the tubes were removed, the babies began to make sounds. Intriguingly, the babies were capable of making sounds that corresponded with their maturation level, providing impressive proof for innate L1 attainment.

Another compelling argument for first language acquisition being a biological universal human trait is of its cross-cultural uniformity. As Stephen Pinker notes, all languages contain rules regarding auxiliaries, inversion, nouns, verbs, subjects, objects, phrases, clauses, case and agreement (2000). Thus, differences between the ways different cultures and societies use these rules are superficial, the point is that every language system contains such complex rules to govern communication, and this, at least for Pinker, indicates that language cannot be a cultural construct. He goes further and argues that language acquisition is thus an "instinct" (Pinker, 2000: 18). By looking at language users who are often deemed as deficient, Pinker highlights the grammatical constraints that preside over language use. For example, studies in the 1960s of Black English Vernacular (BEV) were overlooked as defective because it did not conform to Standard English grammatical rules. People using the dialect were thought of as lacking a proper language system. Using the double negative, for example, in Standard English is considered incorrect: "You ain't goin nowhere". But, closer analysis reveals that this conforms to the French "ne....pas" (Pinker, 2000: 29). It, therefore, seems that even people who are lacking an education and are unaware of the linguistic rules are still compelled to create grammatical sentences, indicating that it is the brain that constructs such rules.

Pinker further justifies L1 acquisition as instinctive by drawing on Chomsky's "Poverty of Stimulus Argument" (1979), that the rate and accuracy by which children acquire the grammar of their mother tongue exceeds the input. To support this claim experiments were conducted with children regarding the suffix - s. This was used because it is not fundamental in the English Language; it does not affect the meaning of sentences. Therefore, it helps to show that the grammatical rules are not merely for "usefulness", as the - s suffix can be regarded as a psychological construct. Yet, to correctly use the suffix -s is complicated. It needs to be utilised in accordance with agreement:

I walk. She walks. They walk.

The speaker must also be aware of the subject (whether third person or first) and whether it is singular or plural. Children by the age of three are capable of doing just that, they acquire the grammatical rules governing the language of their community of practice with little error. More to the point, children are not simply imitating their parents since they construct sentences that they have never heard of, such as "He gots..."(Pinker, 2000: 45) Although grammatically incorrect, it highlights children's "hypothesising" of language, and parents attempts to correct their children are ignored. This suggests that children unconsciously acquire the agreement rule, and that they are actively engaging with the language.

Further proof that L1 learning is dependent on normal brain functioning is from neurological and genetic evidence. People with Broca's aphasia are incapable of constructing and understanding grammatical sentences because of the damage to the left lobe. This adds weight for a Language Acquisition Device (LAD). Recent genetics research has found that some language impediments are hereditary, such as Specific Language Impairment (SLI) whereby sufferers, similar to Broca's aphasia, are unable to distinguish grammatical forms (Pinker, 2000). Thus, L1 acquisition being a natural, innate process seems to be substantiated by the parallel cognitive development in infants. The UG seems to be validated by the way in which children develop language skills. Brain scans further add weight to the internal processes of obtaining the mother-tongue. Effectively, if L1 acquisition is predetermined, that genes and brain areas ultimately govern language use, then as long as these are in place and are working normally a human should be able to acquire an L1. However, the tragic cases of "wild children" show that this is untrue. By looking at the case study of Genie, the idea of the L1 being a secured enterprise will be undermined.

Case study of L1 in mature person

The well-documented case of Genie offers a crucial way to critically scrutinize the acquisition of L1 as she provides a unique study of a mature person attaining a native language. It should be noted that at birth doctors found no brain abnormalities that would hinder her language learning. Genie from birth was subjected to vulgar environmental impoverishment: confined to a room with no mental or physical stimulation and isolated from all forms of communication, the results were detrimental to her language development. Restricted to infantile phrases, Genie is unable to move beyond the age of a two year old (Fromkin, Krashen, Curtiss et al, 1974). Thus, the idea of an innate language system cannot be taken for granted; environmental input is of equal importance. However, a scholar from the Chomskyan school of thought might argue that her severe neglect, both physically and emotionally, has caused brain defects and the psychological trauma has caused her to develop mental disorders. Moreover, Genie's inability to acquire language higher than a two year old lends support to Lenneberg's "Critical Age" hypothesis, further highlighting the biological premises for language acquisition.

Such ruminations, however, seem circular: is it ultimately a special faculty in the mind that allows language attainment? Or, are environmental cues necessary to prime speech? This "nativism" approach to acquiring a mother-tongue relentlessly downplays the environmental cues which facilitate and allow L1 acquisition. More crucially, it fails to acknowledge the fundamental purpose of language attainment - communication. No one would deny the social functions of speech, and yet language "nativism" seems to do just that. Perhaps the most prominent example of the need for social interaction, and so more than just interior processes in the infant's brain, is the tragic case of Genie.

As mentioned, on the surface, Genie's deficiency in L1 attainment seems to reinforce its biological underpinnings: the "Critical Age" hypothesis and the need for simultaneous cognitive development for language learning to take place. Yet, the fact Genie was even able to acquire a language after the "Critical Age" reveals the magnitude of environmental factors. Researchers have concluded that Genie's L1 achievement has been chiefly through "exposure" (Fromkin et al, 1974: 124) that it is to say by "nurture". What is more, incongruence with the idea of parallel maturation level with growth of language accomplishment is that Genie's cognitive abilities in other language areas, such as writing and reading, far surpass her verbal skills (Fromkin et al, 1974). Thus, it seems that while biologically Genie had the potential to obtain language normally her lack of environmental cues hindered this growth. Genie's lack of improvement gives credence to Jerome Bruner's Language Acquisition Support System (LASS).

LASS

L1 attainment is more complicated than implicit absorption by the child. Even if we grant the precepts of an innate cognitive ability to acquire a language it must be complemented by social interaction. One of the most influential psychologists who support this view is Jerome Bruner. He emphasises the emotional and interactive nature of language in infant learning. The child must have environmental stimulation to ascertain meaning in the language and to fully appreciate the need for verbal communication. Routine is quintessential: the way parents verbalise everyday processes, such as eating and bathing, engage the child in the premises of communication. It is this interaction that allows the child to shift from passive observer to active control (Bruner, 1983). Thus, the presence of a LAD alone is not sufficient in language learning; input from the environment is of equal importance. Perhaps the most telling way in which environment has a key role in acquiring a mother-tongue is bilingualism in infants.

Terminology

Bilingualism has been defined as a "native-like control of two or more languages" (Skutnabb-kangas, 1981: 82). However, the onset for learning another language varies. Simultaneous bilinguals (exposure to two languages from birth onwards) and successive bilinguals (learn their L2 after a significant time elapse from their L1). Examining simultaneous bilingualism helps to reveal the interaction between the biological processes in language learning and the environmental factors.

Exposing infants to two languages is often thought of as detrimental, leading to cognitive confusion and inadequacies in both languages. Yet, empirical studies of simultaneous bilingualism quickly dispel such fears. Extensive research has shown that most children feel enriched and even enjoy having two languages at their disposal. One acute and personal study conducted by Chiara Dal-Martello Lage (2005) highlights this point.

Case Study

Dal-Martello Lage exposed her son, Enrico, from birth to both American-English and Italian, although he lived and went to school in America. His father spoke American and Dal-Martello (his mother) spoke Italian. Subsequently, he was able to acquire both languages simultaneously. Extensive records were kept of her son's progress in both languages.

When compared to a monolingual child's language development the results are similar. For example, his first spoken words were monosyllabic and he later overgeneralized verb forms. The only major difference is that Enrico had a greater vocabulary at his disposal. Also, as Enrico got older he became more aware of the purpose and function of language, his language preference was determined by the one which was more useful in communication. It was also found that Enrico found speaking American-English easier than speaking Italian, which suggests the integral role of environment. The more exposure to a language, the easier it is to learn and use.

Enrico's acquisition of his dual languages is suggestive of the "mechanisms" involved in language attainment. For instance, at the age of two years and two months Enrico flitted between the two languages with ease, choosing the language according to which parent he was speaking too. Occasionally, the vocabulary was transferred across the languages, illustrating Enrico's integrated lexical proficiency in both languages. This lends support to psycholinguistic research in the mental lexicon process of L2, that word representations in both L1 and L2 are activated simultaneously (Libben, 2000). So, it appears that in comparison to monolingual L1 learning, acquiring two languages in conjunction in infants is remarkably similar.

From examining simultaneous bilingualism, the role of the environment, which is often understated in L1 acquisition, is shown to be of equal importance to biological predisposition. The extent to which nature or nurture is more potent in early language attainment remains open, but their interaction is fundamental in honing verbal communication. The attainment of two languages in infants has shown little disparity to monolingual infants, which further demonstrates the interaction between nature and nurture, but also that the learner must actively participate. It is perhaps better then to refer to L1 "learning" as opposed to "acquisition" as this implies that the agent simply absorbs the information without effort, which is not the case. Infants make sounds and play with their language, as evident by the novelty of their responses and by some of the grammatical errors they make. It is now necessary to explore successive bilingualism to ascertain whether there are marked differences in learning an L1 and L2.