Similarities Between L1 And L2 Learning Part 2

Second language learning, in popular belief, is held as a talent for a select body; only those with a "knack" for language will be able to communicate fully in a non-native language. True, some people seem to "pick up" a language with more ease than others, but how much can be afforded to genetics? How much is innate ability? Similarly to the nature-nurture dichotomy for L1, it is also hotly debated for L2 learning.

The chief supporter for an innate ability for L2 learning is Krashen. He believes that all humans have the ability to acquire a second language because of the LAD. For him, there is no critical age in obtaining a language, meaning that just as babies can effortlessly "pick up" another language, so can adults. Brain scans seem to provide evidence for an "innate" disposition to language, as the basic mechanisms for L2 acquisition in adults is comparable to L1 learning in infants: the same brain areas are involved and word processing follows the same pattern (Ojemann, 1991). Accordingly, all that is required is input in the second language and the learner will implicitly absorb the information. An interesting case study of this "immersion" approach in L2 learning in Quebec seems to substantiate the innate ability claim (Clift and Arnopoulos, 1984).

Canadian Case Study

Quebec is a French speaking province in Canada and the official language is French, putting English speaking Canadians at a disadvantage. To remedy this, English children, beyond the "Critical Age", were exposed to French on a daily basis: all their classes were taught in French and they communicated with each other in French. At home, however, they would speak English. Under such high exposure, these children seemed to "implicitly" absorb their L2. But, how was this possible?

One hypothesis postulated by Krashen is the "Natural Approach" (1985) in acquiring an L2. Krashen believes that learning an L2 is essentially similar to acquiring an L1. Thus, Krashen takes a Chomskyan stance to L2 learning: that it is implicit because of the LAD, and so input is more important than output. He cites the regularity in L2 learners' errors as further proof of the similarities between L1 and L2, so correcting errors by offering grammar lessons is futile, as the learner's LAD will enable them to naturally work out the grammatical rules. However, this is a somewhat naive approach to second language attainment. Of course exposure is vital for success, but this only forms the basis for further improvement. The Canadian case study only provides a limited insight into L2 learning, since the students were in a unique position whereby learning the second language had a direct import on their social interaction; they needed to acquire the language to communicate within their community.

A more damning criticism to Krashen's immersion classes is that the success rate of the children has been overstated. Children were proficient in listening and reading French, but they were lacking in verbal communication and written work. Perhaps because they were "dictated" too in that they were exposed to spoken French, but this was not reinforced with structured input to enable them to communicate in grammatically correct structures. Children would not initiate conversations in French, and some were lacking in other cognitive areas.

This has led some researchers to believe that there is a critical age in which native-like fluency in an L2 is achievable. Rather than relying on the individual's ability to simply "pickup" the language, more formal approaches are required; the learner must actively learn the language by explicit instructions. The most influential advocate of this theory is John Anderson. Anderson's ACT-R

Anderson's ACT-R theory contrasts Krashen's "Natural Approach" by emphasising the need for explicit rule-based instruction as the foundation for L2 acquisition (Dörnyei, 2009). Anderson's theory can be surmised as:

1. Declarative stage: must actively learn the grammar and vocabulary. 2. Procedural stage: shift from consciously thinking about the grammar or vocabulary to applying it. For example, when presented with the word "oiseau" rather than having to think of the translation "bird" and then the actual animal, it conjures up the animal. 3. Automatic stage: fewer errors, less cognitive input, and continuous practice leads to native-like proficiency. Again, this does not give a full account of L2 learning, since there are cases where people are able to learn foreign languages without having to meticulously learn the grammatical rules. More crucially, simply practicing the rules learnt in class does not automatically equate to native proficiency.

Both Anderson and Krashen significantly underestimate the fundamental difference between L1 and L2 learning - outcome. There is a greater variety in achievement of L2 than L1. So, why is there such a gulf between L1 achievement and L2?

One reason is that the learning contexts are significantly different. L1 learning is integral for social and developmental interaction, whilst L2 is not for most people; people construct their identity through language so the learner may not have the same affinity for the L2, and when people are learning their L2 an L1 is already in place, which can either be beneficial or a hindrance (Dörnyei, 2009). The last two differences particularly have caused researchers to move away from collective approaches of L2 learning like that of Krashen and Anderson and shift towards "Performance Analysis" (Ortega, 2009), which looks at the individual's learning pattern.

L2 learning pattern

Surprisingly, the learning pattern of L2 is highly comparable to L1 learning. Both tend to achieve the language rules in a similar pattern: morphological features such as -ing, plural, past, singular and possessive (Krashen, 1985). More striking, L2 learners create their own grammar. As highlighted by Selinker (1972), when acquiring a new language the learner creates a distinct language in the process, which is referred to as interlanguage. The "errors" inherent in learners' interlanguage is seen as a positive sign of their efforts to attain the new language; just as in L1 acquisition children make mistakes. For example, children, when learning the past tense, will invent phrases: "runned" for "ran" (Ortega, 2009). This is similar to adults learning a second language. Note, the construction "runned" does not stem from the environment, nor does it correlate with the native-tongue. In this respect, the learner has invented a system to navigate around the language they are trying to learn. Whilst L1 learners accelerate beyond this interlanguage state, most L2 learners find it difficult to improve. There are many reasons for this, such as affective factors, age, exposure, need to learn, and motivation to name a few. All these reasons suggest that the most crucial cause for the gap in attainment is due to the learner and the Individual Differences (IDs).

IDs

Krashen and Anderson's approaches to L2 learning highlighted the fundamental problems underlying second language attainment: the implicit-explicit dichotomy. How much implicit learning is required, and how much explicit? L1 learning in children seems to be implicit, but children do engage with the language by babbling and "hypothesising", and so the active participation of the child is essential, suggesting that there is some explicit learning. Furthermore, studies on simultaneous bilingualism illustrate the role of the participant as a prime concern. For Enrico to learn Italian, he had to have a strong desire, even though he seemed to learn Italian by the same mechanisms as American-English. For successive bilingualism, the active role of the learner is even greater: the IDs (personality, aptitude, motivation, learning styles and learning strategies) (Dörnyei, 2005) thus have a more profound impact. This accounts for the significant difference in success rates and the reason some people are able to obtain L2 from more implicit teaching methods, whilst others from explicit. Therefore, similarly to L1 learning, a LASS is required to guide the learner. The best teaching methods will ultimately allow the learner to be active in obtaining the second language and will tailor the guidance to meet the level of the learner.

It is also worth noting that some scholars, such as Dörnyei (2005), believe that the uniformity and proficiency levels in L1 achievement have been overemphasised. Indeed, children vary greatly in learning their native language; hence, some parents say "(s)he was a late talker". Although these are normal delays and most children catch up, some do not. Some children require extra support for pronunciation for instance. It also seems that some children command the grammatical features of their mother-tongue considerably better than others, which is apparent not only in their spoken communication, but also in their written discourse. What is more, studies have also shown that there are gender differences: girls tend to advance quicker than boys in moving from one word utterances to longer syntactic structures, girls tend to speak more than boys, and girls speak more about relationships with others, whereas boys speak more about object relationships (Haug, 1993). However, more research is required in gender differences in L1 learning.

Conclusion

Ultimately, L1 and L2 learning are remarkably similar. Simultaneous bilingualism underscores this by highlighting human's predisposition for language, the need for environmental cues, and, most importantly, the active participation of the learner in attaining the language. Perhaps what most clearly shows the likeness in L1 and L2 learning is successive bilingualism. Both infants and adult language learners construct their own language based on their individual understanding of the grammars governing the language, both require a support system to hone their verbal skills, and both show extraordinary differences in command of the learnt language. Although there are essential differences in L1 and L2 learning, differential success namely, it is the differences within L1 and L2 learning that is most fascinating. Indeed, the magnitude of the individual differences in accomplishing spoken communication cannot be overstated, though researchers make collective data and learners of L1 and L2 undergo similar development patterns, the diversity in verbal command and how personal language learning actually is needs more attention to help learners reach their potential in spoken communication.