Similarities:

 In both first and second language acquisition, universal grammar may influence learning.
In second language learning, universal grammar may influence learning either
independently or through the first language.
 In both first and second language acquisition, there are predictable stages, and particular
structures are acquired in a set order. Individuals may move more slowly or quickly
through these stages, but they cannot skip ahead.
 In both first and second language acquisition, making errors is a part of learning.
Learners need to make and test hypotheses about language to build an internal
representation of the language. In the initial stages 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.
 In both first and second language acquisition, the learner uses context clues, prior
knowledge, and interaction to comprehend language.
 In both first and second language acquisition, age is an important variable affecting
proficiency.
 In both first and second language acquisition, learners can often comprehend more
complex language than they are able to produce. In the initial stages of learning, learners
go through a silent period.
 In both first and second language acquisition, a learner's proficiency can vary across
situations.
 In both first and second language acquisition, learners may overgeneralize vocabulary or
rules, using them in contexts broader than those in which they should be used.
 In both first and second language acquisition, learners need comprehensible input
and opportunities to learn language in context in order to increase their proficiency.

Differences:

 In first language acquisition, the basis for learning is universal grammar alone. In second
language acquisition, knowledge of the first language also serves as a basis for learning
the second language. There may be both positive and negative transfer between
languages in second language learning.
 In first language acquisition, children spend several years listening to language, babbling,
and using telegraphic speech before they can form sentences. In second language
acquisition in older learners, learning is more rapid and people are able to form sentences
within a shorter period of time.
 In formal second language learning in older learners, learners are able to use more
metacognitive processes in their learning. They can consciously analyze and manipulate
grammatical structures, and they can explicitly describe how language works. This can
speed the learning process.
  In second language learning in older learners, learners bring more life experience and
background knowledge to their learning. They have more schemata and more learning
strategies to help them learn the second language.
 In second language learning in older learners, there may be less access to universal
grammar, and sensitivity to phonological distinctions not present in the native language
will be reduced. Students learning in a classroom setting may also have fewer
opportunities to learn language authentically. These factors may reduce the likelihood
that second language learners will attain native-like proficiency. First-language learners
always attain native proficiency, unless they have a disability that affects language
learning.
 In first language acquistion, learners have many chances to practice with native speakers
(especially caregivers). In second language acquisition, learners may or may not have the
opportunity to practice extensively with native speakers.
 Almost everyone acquires a first language, but not everyone acquires a second language.
Acquiring a first language happens naturally, while acquiring a second language often
requires conscious effort on the part of the learner.

** Viva : Second Language Acquisition

Page history last edited by Carmen Vanegas 7 years ago

Theories of Second Language Acquisition

(SLA) (Standard 4B1)

Behaviorist Theories: Behaviorist theories of SLA, such as the theories of B.F.

Skinner, view language learning as a form of operant conditioning (Gass &
Selinker, 2001). Students learn language in small parts through extensive practice
and repetition. Reinforcement of correct patterns increases their frequency of use
over time. The Audiolingual Method (described below) is based on behaviorist
theories of SLA.

Connectionist Theories: Connectionist theories attempt to describe how language

learning occurs through mental processing. The brain uses parallel processing,
which means that multiple groups of neurons are activated together in thinking and
learning, rather than being activated in sequence (Brown, 2000; Gass & Selinker,
2001). Language learning occurs by strengthening or weakening connections
within the brain's neural network through repeated exposure to ilinguistic input
(Brown, 2000; Gass & Selinker, 2001). The brain does not explicitly learn
rules; rather, rules are automatically applied as the strength of a particular pattern
of connections grows (Omaggio Hadley, 1993).

Generativist Theories: Chomsky's theory of language acquisition posits the

existence of a specific language acquisition device (LAD) that helps children learn
their first languages (Brown, 2000; Gass & Selinker, 2001). This language
acquisition device includes assumptions about the possible organization of human
languages (Universal Grammar) (Gass & Selinker, 2001). Different languages
have different settings for the parameters within Universal Grammar (Gass &
Selinker, 2001). For example, English is set to "yes" for the Wh-movement
parameter, while Chinese is set to "no" (Yang, 2006). This means that English
speakers move wh- words to the front of a sentence to make a question, while
Chinese speakers leave the wh- words at the end (Yang, 2006). There is debate
about what extent adults learning a second language still have full access to the
language acquisition device (Gass & Selinker, 2001). However, Universal
Grammar has been used to analyze and explain patterns in the interlanguage of
second language learners (Gass & Selinker, 2001).

Krashen's Input Hypothesis: Stephen Krashen has proposed a theory of second

language acquisition based on five hypotheses (Brown, 2000; Gass & Selinker,
2001). First, adult second-language learners can acquire a language
subconsciously through use, or learn rules and forms of a language. Learned
aspects of the target language cannot become part of fluent language use; only
acquired aspects contribute to language fluency. Second, learners can use a
"monitor" to check their output based knowledge of learned rules/forms. The
monitor should only be used after the learner has attained target language fluency.
Third, learners acquire target language rules in a consistent order. Fourth, learners
need comprehensible input in their zone of proximal development in order to
progress in their language development. Fifth, an affective filter prevents
acquisition when learners experience anxiety. Krashen's theory has intuitive
appeal, but has been widely criticized for its strict separation of learning and
acquisition, which does not appear to have support in cognitive science.
Cognitive Theories: Cognitive theories focus on the ways in which second
language learning is similar to other types of learning (Brown, 2000; Omaggio
Hadley, 1993). Cognitive processes like transfer, generalization, simplication, and
restructuring are used to describe the language-learning process (Omaggio Hadley,
1993). Subskills of language must not only be learned through practice, but also
be integrated and organized into a larger cognitive framework (Omaggio Hadley,
1993). Cognitive theorists Schiffrin and Schneider claim that language skills must
first undergo controlled processing before they can become automatic (Omaggio
Hadley, 1993). This means that learners may need extensive practice to
automatize language, and they may make more errors in free conversation (when
they are not controlling their output) than when they are carrying out exercises in
class (and are more focused on control) (Omaggio Hadley, 1993). Ausubel
described the process of restructuring in learning (Omaggio Hadley, 1993). For
learning to be meaningful, students must connect it to their prior knowledge and
integrate it into their cognitive structures (Omaggio Hadley, 1993; Brown, 2000).
Rote learning is not integrated into preexisting cognitive structures and is easily
lost (Omaggio Hadley, 1993). In the cognitive view, second language learners
should be explicitly taught language rules and given the opportunity to practice
them in meaningful communicative contexts (Omaggio Hadley, 1993).

Social Constructivist Theories: Social constructivists focus on the importance of

interaction in second language development. Long developed the interaction
hypothesis, which states that learners obtain comprehensible input through
interacting with interlocutors who modify their output to match the learner's level
(Brown, 2000; Gass & Selinker, 2001). Interlocutors may repeat, rephrase, slow
their speech, or include comprehension checks to increase comprehensibility
(Brown, 2000).

Measuring Second Language Proficiency

(4A6, 4B1)

Defining and measuring second language proficiency is challenging. Students are

often able to comprehend (listening, reading) more advanced language than they
are able to produce (speaking, writing), so tests of comphrehension and production
may give different pictures of a student's proficiency (Selinker & Gass, 2001).

Defining proficiency:

Chomsky differentiated between a speaker's underlying competence and his/her

performance in a specific situation (Gass & Selinker, 2001). Competence
represents a speaker's underlying knowledge of a language, while performance is
the actual production and comprehension of language (Brown, 2000). In the past,
teachers often focused on grammatical competence as the goal of second language
instruction, but researchers later proposed broader models of competence
(Omaggio Hadley, 1993). For example, Canale and Swain proposed a model of
communicative competence that included grammatical competence, sociolinguistic
competence (use of languages for different functions and in different registers),
discourse competence (ability to connect language into a coherent whole), and
strategic competence (use of communication strategies to work around gaps in the
learner's language knowledge) (Omaggio Hadley, 1993).

Measuring proficiency:

The American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages publishes

proficiency guidelines that are widely used to evaluate speaking and writing, as
well as reading and listening. The guidelines were originally published in 1982
and represented the first attempt to define and describe functional competence in a
second language (Omaggio Hadley, 1993). The AFTCL guidelines group students
into four categories: novice (low, mid, high), intermediate (low, mid, high),
advanced (low, mid, high), and superior. Teachers of English to Speakers of Other
Languages has also published proficiency guidelines for English Language
Learners. The TESOL guidelines group students into five levels of language
development and provide standards for students at each level based on grade-level
and content area.

Standards:
State standards describe the competencies expected for English Language Learners
at different levels of language development. The California State English-
Language Development Standards are some of the most comprehensive. The
Minnesota English Language Learner Standards also describe competencies for
students at different grade levels and language development levels.

Process of Second Language Acquisition

(Standard 4B1, 4B4, 4I11)

Models:

One influential model of second language acquisition was proposed by Ellis based
on an extensive review of research in the area (Omaggio Hadely, 1993). Ellis
proposed four main stages of language development (Omaggio Hadley, 1993).
During the first stage, learners use a standard word order, leave out parts of
sentences, and use memorized chunks of language to communicate (Ommagio
Hadley, 1993). In the second stage, learners begin to use target language word
order and include most of the parts of sentences (Omaggio Hadley, 1993). During
the third stage, learners begin to systematically use morphemes in the target
language to express meaning (Omaggilo Hadley, 1993). During the fourth stage,
learners are able to accurately use complex sentence structures (Ommagio Hadley,
1993).

Another model is that proposed by Brown (2000) based on work by Corder.

Brown's model also describes four stages of learner language development. In the
first stage, learners make random errors (Brown, 2000). The learner has not yet
developed a systematic mental representation of the target language. During the
second stage, the learner begins to form an "emergent" target language system and
internalize some target language rules (Brown, 2000). However, the target
language system is not yet complete. The learner avoids some structures and
topics and is not yet able to self-correct errors (Brown, 2000). In the third stage,
the learner's target language use becomes increasingly systematic and consistent.
Learners are able to self-correct errors when they are pointed out to them (Brown,
2000). During the fourth stage, the learner's system is a good approximation of the
target language system, and learners are able to notice and correct their own errors
(Brown, 2000). Learners can monitor their language use and improve on
remaining errors and inconsistencies (Brown, 2000). However, learner language
may also stabilize (fossilize), and the remaining errors may undergo little change
over time (Brown, 2000).

A third model is from Herrera and Murphy (2005). Learners begin in a

preproduction stage, where they are silent and comprehend little of the second
language, and they may use nonverbal communication (Herrera & Murphy, 2005).
Adolescent learners will progress through this stage more quickly than younger
learners (Herrera & Murphy, 2005). In the early production stage, learners attempt
to sound out words using sounds from the native language and begin to understand
high-frequency vocabulary and expressions (Herrera & Murphy, 2005). Learners
use context clues to comprehend input in the second language (Herrera & Murphy,
2005). In the speech emergence stage, learners begin to decode and comprehend
simple text independently, speak in short sentences, and understand conversations,
dialogues, stories, and some idioms (Herrera & Murphy, 2005). In the
intermediate fluency stage, the learner may translate between the two languages,
use more varied vocabulary (including academic and content-specific vocabulary),
and show increased proficiency in reading, writing, speaking, and listening
(Herrera & Murphy, 2005). The student can comprehend meaning without
depending as heavily on context clues (Herrera & Murphy, 2005). In the advanced
fluency stage, the learner is able to read and comprehend a variety of texts (Herrera
& Murphy, 2005). The learner can produce increasingly native-like language in
speech and writing, using advanced grammar and vocabulary, including idioms
(Herrera & Murphy, 2005).

Interlanguage

Interlanguage, or learner language, is the learner's developing target language

system. Researchers have tried to understand the development of interlanguage by
examining influences both from previously-learned languages and from Universal
Grammar.
Linguists in the 1950s and 1960s were focused on a structuralist approach to the
study of language. They documented and compared the grammars of different
languages. Their work influenced theories of second language acquisition through
the contrastive analysis hypothesis (Brown, 2000). The strong version of the
contrastive anaylisis hypothesis states that the difficulties of learners in learning a
second language can be both predicted and described based on the differences
between the two languages (Brown, 2000). Stockwell, Bowen, and Martin created
a hierarchy of difficulty for ranking differences in grammatical and phonological
systems of two languages (Brown, 2000). Researchers found, however, that it was
very difficult to rank contrasts between two languages in practice, and that
contrastive analysis was not able to accurately predict learner difficulties (Brown,
2000). Wardaugh proposed a weak version of the contrastive analysis hypothesis
that is now referred to as cross-linguistic influence (Brown, 2000). This version of
contrastive analysis does not claim to predict learner difficulties; rather, it
recognizes the importance of previously-learned languages as part of the
background knowledge of the learner that influences learner language (Brown,
2000).

Behaviorist theories of language learning led many researchers to view previously-

learned languages as a roadblock to second language learning (Brown, 2000).
They focused on errors caused by "interference" from previously-learned
languages. Now, researchers recognize that there are many positive aspects of the
language background knowledge learners bring to a second language, and they use
the more neutral term "transfer" to describe interlinguistic influence (Brown,
2000). For example, learners are able to transfer literacy skills, knowledge of
cognates, pragmatic and sociolinguistic knowledge, and knowledge of similar
grammatical structures from one language to another (Brown, 2000). Transfer
does not always lead to error. Examining errors can help us understand a learner's
developing target language system, but to get a complete picture of what learners
know, we have to look at the whole picture of their language production, not just
errors (Brown, 2000).

The role of Universal Grammar in second-language learning is hotly debated (Gass

& Selinker, 2001). White summarized the range of hypotheses about access to
Universal Grammar (Gass & Selinker, 2001).
  Some researchers propose that second-language learners have no access to
the Language Acquisition Device used for first language acquisition, and
that Universal Grammar only affects second language acquisition through
transfer from the first language. Aspects of Universal Grammar not present
in the first language would not be accessible to the learner.
 Some researchers propose that second-language learners have full access to
the Language Acquisition Device and Universal Grammar. They propose
that first and second language acquisition would follow similar paths, and
that transfer would be unimportant in second language acquisition.
 Some researchers propose that there is transfer from the first language, but
when that proves inadequate, learners are able to access Universal
Grammar. Both transfer and Universal Grammar impact second language
acquisiiton in this model, and second language learning therefore follows a
different path than first language learning.
 Some researchers propose partial transfer from the first language with access
to Universal Grammar. Different aspects of language are available through
Universal Grammar than through transfer, so second language learning will
differ from first language learning.
 Some researchers propose partial transfer from the first language and only
partial access to Universal Grammar. Again, second language acquisition
would follow a different path than first language acquisition, and high levels
of proficiency in the target language would be difficult to reach.

Research supports a role for both transfer and Universal Grammar in aspects of
second language acquisition (Gass & Selinker, 2001). Native native speakers of
different languages learning the same target language will show some similar
patterns in language development, such as a common order of morpheme
acquisition (Gass & Selinker, 2001). At the same time, speakers of a particular
native language may share interlanguage features that speakers of other languages
do not (Gass & Selinker, 2001). For example, native language may affect the rate
of progress through particular developmental stages (Gass & Selinker, 2001).

Second Language Teaching Methods (4A6,

4B5)
Grammar-Translation: This method was commonly used in the late 1800s and
early 1900s (Brown, 2000; Omaggio Hadley, 1993). Students memorized
grammar rules and vocabulary, and used their knowledge to translate classical texts
(eg. in Latin or Greek)(Brown, 2000; Omaggio Hadley, 1993). Reading and
writing were emphasized almost exclusively--students did not have opportunities
to practice speaking and listening in class (Brown, 2000; Omaggio Hadley,
1993). Rather, class was conducted in the students' native language, with
comparisons made between L1 and L2 structures (Brown, 2000; Omaggio
Hadley, 1993). This method did not help students to develop speaking or
listening proficiency, or to develop proficiency in any kind of creative writing
(Brown, 2000; Omaggio Hadley, 1993). The focus on correct translation
made it risky for students to try using language in new ways or test their
hypotheses about language (Brown, 2000; Omaggio Hadley, 1993). In the
best case scenario, students developed reading proficiency in the target language
(Brown, 2000; Omaggio Hadley, 1993).

Direct Method: This method was popularized in the 1800s by Berlitz and other
educators (Brown, 2000). It emphasized learning language through speaking and
pairing words with objects and actions in the classroom (Brown, 2000). Classes
were conducted in the language without translation (Omaggio Hadley, 1993).
Grammar was not explicitly taught; rather, students were expected to learn
grammar rules through practice (Omaggio Hadley, 1993). Correction was
discouraged as a barrier to fluency (Omaggio Hadley, 1993). This method was
sometimes not sufficiently organized and structured, and did not capitalize on the
ability of older learners to benefit from explicit grammar instruction and corrective
feedback (Ommagio Hadley, 1993).

Audiolingual Method: This method was based on behaviorist theories of SLA. It

emphasized learning listening first, then speaking, then reading, and finally writing
(Brown, 2000). Students learned rules through extensive practice (overlearning),
rather than explicit grammar instruction (Brown, 2000). Translation was not used,
and language structures in the L2 were not compared with L1 structures (Omaggio
Hadley, 1993). Students were conditioned to use language by memorizing
dialogues and completing pattern drills (Omaggio Hadley, 1993). This method did
not allow for much creative use of language, and therefore did not provide
opportunities for students to test out their hypotheses about the language (Omaggio
Hadley, 1993). There were no provisions made for learners who preferred to learn
to read the language early on, or for those who would benefit from explicit
instruction in grammar (Omaggio Hadley, 1993). The drills often led to rote
learning rather than meaningful learning (Brown, 2000). Some techniques from
this method are used in language classrooms today, but they are coupled with a
greater communicative focus and more explicit grammar instruction (Omaggio
Hadley, 1993).

Cognitive Code Method: This method was based on cognitive theories of language
learning (Omaggio Hadley, 1993). Learners were expected to engage in
meaningful learning, including creative language output rather than just rote drills
(Omaggio Hadley, 1993). The teacher was expected to relate new learning to
student's prior knowledge and provide a foundation of knowledge, including
explicit grammar instruction, so that students could build competence in the
language (Omaggio Hadley, 1993). This method provided many opportunities for
active, authentic use of language, but the emphasis on grammar led some teachers
to spend to much time on explicit grammar instruction in the students' native
language (Omaggio Hadley, 1993).

Communicative Language Teaching: This approach emphasizes development of

different functions of language and communicative competence (Omaggio Hadley,
1993). The emphasis is on authentic communication, and the teacher's job is to use
a variety of instructional strategies and plan varied learning activities that give
students opportunities for meaningful communication (Omaggio Hadley, 1993).
Translation is allowed as needed, and feedback is provided to students on the
accuracy of their language output in context, rather than through isolated grammar
drills (Omaggio Hadley, 1993). This approach allows teachers to draw from
different methods. Because of its flexibility, this approach can be used in a variety
of ways, with different advantages and disadvantages.

Total Physical Response: In this approach, developed by James Asher,

development of listening comprehension is emphasized before oral
language production (Omaggio Hadley, 1993). The teacher uses oral commands in
the classroom, and students show their comprehension by acting on them.
Eventually, students begin to produce their own commands (Omaggio Hadley,
1993). This method allows students to begin language learning in a low-anxiety
environment because there is no pressure to produce language (Omaggio Hadley,
1993). The kinesthetic aspect of the method aids student memory. At the same
time, this method is limited because it does not address reading or writing,
authentic language use, or language functions beyond commands. TRP activities
are often combined with other methods to provide complete language instruction
(Omaggio Hadley, 1993)

Natural Approach: This approach was developed by Terrell based on Krashen's

Input Hypothesis (Omaggio Hadley, 1993). The emphasis is on providing
comprehensible input and emphasizing communication rather than error correction
to keep the affective filter low (Omaggio Hadley, 1993). There is little explicit
grammar instruction, as the goal is acquisition rather than learning (Omaggio
Hadley, 1993). Students are allowed to respond in the first language initially, to
keep anxiety low (Omaggio Hadley, 1993). This approach provides many
opportunities for authentic and creative use of language, but the lack of explicit
grammar instruction and corrective feedback may hinder student learning
(Omaggio Hadley, 1993).

Community Language Learning: In this approach, learners sit in a circle and the
teacher stands outside. At first, students converse in the native language while the
teacher translates (Omaggio Hadley, 1993). Later, students begin to converse
directly in the target language and give one another corrective feedback (Omaggio
Hadley, 1993). This method allows for creative and authentic use of language and
corrective feedback (Omaggio Hadley, 1993). However, unless the teacher
provides direction, students may not learn language associated with different
contexts that are unlikely to come up in conversation. There is also a lack of
structure in the introduction of grammar and vocabulary (Omaggio Hadley, 1993)

Suggestopedia: This method was developed by Georgi Lozanov (Brown,

2000). Games and skits are used to review language (Omaggio Hadley, 1993).
Students use guided imagery to relax, and then listen to dialogues with
a background of relaxing music (Omaggio Hadley, 1993). Students then practice
the language from the dialogue in role-plays and activities (Omaggio Hadley,
1993). Explicit grammar instruction in the students' native language is provided
(Omaggio Hadley, 1993). This method gives students opportunities to
use language in context, reduces anxiety, and provides students with grammar
instruction (Omaggio Hadley, 1993). However, there is little use of creative,
student-generated language that goes beyond what is contained in the dialogues.
This may limit students' ability to test their hypotheses about the target language.
Also, the relaxation methods used and the time required may make this
method difficult to incorporate into a typical classroom (Omaggio Hadley, 1993)

Diversity: Factors Affecting Second

Language Acquisition (4B2, 4B3)
Age: Linguists agree that there is a critical period for first language acquisition.
Children who are not exposed to language early in life do not develop a native-like
command of language, despite later exposure (Yang, 2006). Linguists disagree,
however, about whether there is a critical or sensitive period for second-language
acquisition. The critical period hypothesis holds that second languages, just like
first languages, are more easily acquired during early childhood, and that learners
who acquire a language after puberty will not develop native-like pronunciation or
grammar (Brown, 2000). Other researchers believe the critical period hypothesis is
too strong, and prefer to call childhood a "sensitive period", during which
languages are more easily acquired with native-like fluency, although it is also
possible for adults to acquire languages fluently outside of the period (Gass &
Selinker, 2001). Some researchers believe that any differences between child and
adult language acquisition are due to factors such as type of exposure to the
language and affective differences, rather than underlying cognitive differences
(Gass & Selinker, 2001). For example, many children learn a second language in
environments outside of school, while many adults learn primarily in the classroom
(Brown, 2000). The emphasis on rote learning and conscious control of language
in some classrooms, paired with a lack of opportunities for authentic
communication with native speakers, may hinder development of a high level of
proficiency in adult learners (Brown, 2000). The affective filter proposed by
Krashen would also be higher in adults, because adults are more self-conscious and
are used to being able to express themselves at a more advanced level than they are
able to in the second language (Brown, 2000).
Contrary to popular belief, children are not superior language learners by every
measure. For example, studies have shown no advantage or even a slight
disadvantage for children when speed of second language learning is the measure
(Gass & Selinker, 2001). On the other hand, studies of accent show that few adult
second language learners, at least in the Western context, achieve a native-like
accent in the target language (Gass & Selinker, 2001; Brown, 2000). There is also
evidence for differences in syntactic knowledge and underlying grammar between
native speakers and near-native second-language learners (Gass & Selinker,
2001). Research on this question has been largely limited to Western societies, and
some researchers have questioned its universal applicability (Brown, 2000).
Researchers such as Hill and Sorenson have presented some evidence that adult
second-language learners in non-Western cultures are able to reach native-like
proficiency, including accent, in their second languages (Brown, 2000). In the
end, although they may not achieve the same level of fluency as younger learners,
research shows that adults can learn a foreign language to a high level of
proficiency (Brown, 2000; Gass & Selinker, 2001).

Personality Factors: Many studies have examined the link between personality
factors, such as self-esteem, risk-taking, anxiety, extroversion, and introversion on
second language learning. Self-esteem measures have been found to correlate with
success in second language learning, but no cause-and-effect relationship between
self-esteem and second language acquisition has been established (Brown, 2000).
Some research has also linked moderate risk-taking with better second language
learning (Brown, 2000). Trait anxiety (overall predisposition to be anxious) has
not been shown to correlate with second language learning, but foreign language
anxiety (anxiety about communicating ideas, being judged socially, or being
tested) correlates negatively with second language learning outcomes (Brown,
2000). Neither extroversion nor introversion has been correlated with improved
second language learning overall, although extroverts and introverts may each have
advantages in certain types of language learning tasks (Brown, 2000). In the end,
it is very difficult to define and measure personality factors, and even more
difficult to establish a cause-and-effect relationship between these factors and
second language learning outcomes (Brown, 2000).

Other researchers have explored how different motivations for language learning
affect the proficiency level achieved. Gardner and Lambert compared the
performance of students with instrumental motivation for studying a language
(learning a language for work) with performance of students with integrative
motivation for language study (learning a language to join a social group and
culture) (Brown, 2000). They found that students with integrative motivation
attained higher proficiency levels in the second language than students with
instrumental motivation (Brown, 2000). However, later researchers found that the
two types of motivation overlapped in most people, and that in some cases,
students with primarily instrumental motivation performed better than those with
integrative motivation (Brown, 2000). Like defining personality factors, defining a
person's motivations can be complex, and it can be difficult to establish a causal
relationship between these factors and second language learning outcomes (Brown,
2000).

Developing Literacy in a Second Language

(4E1)
Cummins has developed the interdependence principle, which states that skills developed in the
first language can be transfered to the second language (Cummins, 2000). He describes these
skills as a common underlying proficiency (CUP) that determines academic performance in both
languages (Cummins, 2000). Numerous studies have found that literacy skills developed in the
first language transfer to the second language (you only have to learn to read once) (Cummins,
2000). Skills transfer most between similar languages with similar writing systems (eg. two
alphabetic languages like Spanish and English rather than English and Chinese), but even in
cases where the languages and their writing systems are very different, there is transfer of
reading strategies (eg. skimming, using titles, headings, context clues, etc. to understand text).

Barnett described three models of reading comprehension in first and second languages: bottom-
up, top-down, and interactive (Omaggio Hadley, 1993). In the bottom-up model, students must
focus on decoding words and sentences and build meaning from their parts (Omaggio Hadley,
1993). In the top-down model, the students' prior knowledge and schemata are the starting
points for comprehension (Omaggio Hadley, 1993). In the integrative model, the reader uses
both decoding and prior knowledge simultaneously to make sense of a text (Omaggio Hadley,
1993). In the initial stages of becoming literate in a second language, students' processes more
closely match the bottom-up model. Students are primarily focused on decoding each word, and
may have difficulty extracting meaning from text or relating it to their experiences (Omaggio
Hadley,1993). At this stage, explicit instruction in the sound-symbol relationships in the new
language and how they relate to those in the native language can help students become more
fluent readers (Omaggio Hadley, 1993). As students progress and attain higher language
proficiency, they are able to transfer more reading skills and relate reading to their prior
knowledge (Omaggio Hadley, 1993). At this point, it may be more important for the teacher
to explicitly teach reading skills and use learning activities that encourage students to link their
reading to their background knowledge (Omaggio Hadley, 1993).

In the initial stages of writing, if the writing systems are very similar, students may need little
instruction in forming the letters or characters used in the second language. If the writing
systems are very different, students may need explicit instruction in how to form these letters or
characters, how to use punctuation, and how to write in the proper direction across the page. As
students become more comfortable with forming letters and writing simple text, teachers can
instruct students explicitly in how to organize their writing and how to write for different
purposes. Students can transfer their knowledge of discourse structure from the native language
to the second language. If the discourse structures of the two languages are very different,
students may need additional instruction in how to organize their writing in the second
language.

Students who have had limited formal schooling and who are not literate in any language are
learning literacy skills for the first time. They need to learn the relationship between letters and
sounds and between print and meaning. They need to learn about the directionality of print,
including how to correctly orient literacy materials and how to form the letters or characters used
in the second language when writing. Although they cannot transfer as many skills as a student
with previous literacy experiences, they do bring to the table some oral literacy skills that can be
transferred to reading. For example, many students are familiar with the discourse structure used
for stories and speeches in their native languages, which can form a basis for understanding
similar discourse in the second language.

**Introduction

Various theories are put forward to describe first language (L1) acquisition and second language (L2)
acquisition. In order to understand the nature of L1 and L2 language acquisition, various aspects were
examined, compared, and contrasted.
Interlanguages have some common characteristics with L1 acquisition, because both share similar
developmental sequences. Some of the characteristics of L2 acquisition show similarities with L1
acquisition, whereas others show differences.

Similarities between First and Second Language Acquisition

Researchers have carried out numerous studies to understand the nature of first and second language
acquisition. These studies have revealed that both first and second language learners follow a pattern of
development, which is mainly followed despite exceptions. Rod Ellis (1984) covers the idea of
developmental sequences in detail and outlines three developmental stages: the silent period, formulaic
speech, and structural and semantic simplification.

a. Developmental Sequences
1. Silent Period:

Both first and second language learners pass through a similar initial stage, the silent period. Children
acquiring their first language go through a period of listening to the language they are exposed to.
During this period the child tries to discover what language is. In the case of second language
acquisition, learners opt for a silent period when immediate production is not required from them. In
general, however, many second language learners - especially classroom learners- are urged to speak.
The fact that there is a silent period in both first and second language learners (when given the
opportunity) is widely accepted.
However, there is disagreement on what contribution the silent period has in second language
acquisition. While Krashen (1982) argues that it builds competence in the learner via listening, Gibbons
(1985, cited in Ellis, 1994) argues that it is a stage of incomprehension.

2. Speech Formulaic

Formulaic speech is defined as expressions which are learnt as unanalysable wholes and employed on
particular occasions (Lyons, 1968, cited in Ellis, 1994). Krashen (1982) suggests that these expressions
can have the form of routines (whole utterances learned as memorized chunks - e.g. I don't know.),
patterns (partially unanalyzed utterances with one or more slots - e.g. Can I have a ____?), and Ellis
(1994) suggests that these expressions can consist of entire scripts such as greetings.

3. Structural and Semantic Simplification

The first and second language learners apply structural and semantic simplifications to their language.
Structural simplifications take the form of omitting grammatical functors (e.g. articles, auxiliary verbs)
and semantic simplifications take the form of omitting content words (e. g. nouns, verbs). There are two
suggested reasons why such simplifications occur. The first reason is that learners may not have yet
acquired the necessary linguistic forms. The second reason is that they are unable to access linguistic
forms during production.

b. Acquisition Order

Wells (1986b, in Ellis, 1994) proposes inter-learner variables affecting the order of acquisition as sex,
intelligence, social background, rate of learning, and experience of linguistic interaction.
Furthermore, McLaughlin (1987) claims that evidence from research shows that the learner's first
language has an effect on acquisitional sequences which either slows their development or modifies it.
He adds that, considerable individual variation in how learners acquire a second language, such as
different learning, performance, and communication strategies, obscure the acquisitional sequences for
certain constructions.
Lightbown and Spada (2006) review studies which have proposed that the acquisition of question words
(what, where, who, why, when, and how), show a great similarity in first and second language
acquisition. Based on the morpheme studies in L2 acquisition, Krashen (1982) put forward the Natural
Order Hypothesis which he developed to account for second language acquisition. He claimed that we
acquire the rules of language in a predictable order. This acquisition order is not determined by
simplicity or the order of rules taught in the class.
The above arguments show that there seems to exist an order of acquisition in both first and second
language acquisition.
c. Linguistic Universals and Markedness

The findings show that unmarked features are learned earlier and easier than marked rules in both the
first and the second language while unmarked forms require more time and effort by the learner.

d. Overgeneralization

In both first and second language acquisition, learners may overgeneralize vocabulary or rules, using
them in contexts broader than those in which they should be used. For example a child may say ‘goed’
instead of saying ‘went’ for past of ‘go’, and same thing may happen in second language acquisition an
adult may say ‘holded’ instead of ‘held’ for past of ‘hold’.

e. Input

Krashen (1982) argues that the input a first language learner receives is simple and comprehensible at
the beginning and is getting slightly more complicated. With this argument, he supports his next
argument that input should be slightly above the level of the language learner. Only in doing so can the
second language learner move forward. He argues that the second language learner should be exposed
to the target language as much as possible and that the lack of comprehensible input will cause the
language learner to be held up in his development (Ellis, 1994; McLaughlin, 1987).
The Interactionist Approach to first language acquisition holds that one to one interaction gives the child
access to language which is adjusted to his or her level of comprehension, therefore, interaction is seen
as crucial and impersonal sources of language (such as TV and radio) are seen as insufficient.
Consequently, verbal interaction is seen to be crucial for language leaning since it helps to make the
facts of the second language salient to the learner. Similarly, intersectional modifications which take
place in the conversations between native and non-native speakers are seen as necessary to make input
comprehensible for the second language learner (Lightbown & Spada, 2006; Ellis, 1994).

f. Behavioristic Views of Language Acquisition

The similarity between L1 and L2 acquisition is seen in the Behavioristic Approach originally which tries
to explain learning in general. The famous psychologist Pavlov tried to explain learning in terms of
conditioning and habit formation. Following Pavlov, B. F. Skinner tried to explain language learning in
terms of operant conditioning. This view sees language as a behavior to be taught. A small part of the
foreign language acts as a stimulus to which the learner responds (e.g. by repetition). When the learner
is 100 % successful, the teacher reinforces by praise or approval.
Consequently, the likelihood of the behavior is increased. However, if the learner responds
inappropriately then the behavior is punished and the likelihood of this behavior to occur is decreased
(Brown, 1994). In other words, children imitate a piece of language they hear and if they receive positive
reinforcement they continue to imitate and practice that piece of language which then turns into a
'habit' (Williams & Burden, 1997).
However, L1 and L2 learners form and repeat sentences they have not heard of before. Therefore, this
approach fails to account for the creative language use of L1 and L2 learners.

g. Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD)

We can say that zone of proximal development is shared in first and second language acquisition; for
example, when children come across a problem they cannot solve themselves they turn to others for
help. Thus, collaboration with another person is important for a child to learn. Otherwise, development
would not be possible. Learning collaboratively with others precedes and shapes development. A good
example for this process is said to be the development of literacy (Gallaway & Richards, 1994; Lantolf &
Thorne, 2007).
Vygotsky (1982, cited in Daniels, 1996) asserts that through using language children take part in the
intellectual life of the community. In order to negotiate meaning, collaboration between the child and
the members of the community is required. Considering language education, instruction creates the
zone of proximal development, stimulating a series of inner developmental processes (Daniels, 1996;
Lantolf & Thorne, 2007). According to the ZPD, assistant performance and collaboration are crucial for
learning and development. The teacher’s assistance and students’ collaboration with their teacher and
their peers is inevitable for L2 development. The teacher’s most important classroom work “is to
provide for the social interaction within the community of learners such that the learners may move
from what they know to what they don’t yet know” (Hawkins, 2001, p. 375).

Differences of first and second language acquisition

On the surface one would look at child first language acquisition and adult second language acquisition
and see similarities. In each case the learner first learns how to make basic sounds, then words, phrases
and sentences; and as this learning continues the sentences become more and more complex. However,
when one looks at the outcomes of these two types of acquisition, the differences are dramatic. The
child's ability to communicate in the target language far surpasses that of the adult. In this paper
differences in these two processes that most always produce such different outcomes will be explored.

a. Input

The first area of difference between first (L1) and second (L2) language learning is input – specifically the
quality and quantity of input. It is the idea of the "connectionist model that implies... (that the) language
learning process depends on the input frequency and regularity". It is here where one finds the greatest
difference between L1 and L2 acquisition. The quantity of exposure to a target language a child gets is
immense compared to the amount an adult receives. A child hears the language all day every day,
whereas an adult learner may only hear the target language in the classroom – which could be as little as
three hours a week. Even if one looks at an adult in a total submersion situation the quantity is still less
because the amount of one on one interaction that a child gets for example with a parent or other
caregiver is still much greater than the adult is receiving.

b. Age

The next great and obvious difference between L1 and L2 learning is age. A large part of this train of
thought is the idea of a "critical period, or the "time after which successful language learning cannot
take place". This time is usually aligned with puberty. This change is significant, "because virtually every
learner undergoes significant physical, cognitive, and emotional changes during puberty.
There are three main physical changes one undergoes in regards to language acquisition. The first is the
presence of muscular plasticity. A child's plasticity goes away at about the age of five. After this age it is
very hard for a learner to fully master pronunciation of a second language. The second change is one's
memorization capabilities. It is fairly well known that as a person grows older their ability to hold large
amount of information reaches its peak fairly early in life, and then begins to decrease. This is seen most
dominantly with very old individuals. The third physical change that occurs is more related to neurology.
"As a child matures into adulthood, the left hemisphere (which controls the analytical and intellectual
functions) becomes more dominant than the right side (which controls the emotional functions)."
The one advantage adults seem to have over children is their cognitive ability. Adults are better able to
benefit from learning about structure and grammar. Unfortunately this slight advantage in ability does
not help adult second language acquisition in general. In fact this ability almost hinders them in that
they analyze too much. Specifically, they cannot leave behind what they know about their first language,
which leads to a tendency to overanalyze and to second guess what they are learning.
The final area that puberty changes is within the emotional, or affective, realm. Motivation is much
affected by emotional change. A child's motivation is simple. In order to communicate and to be a part
of family and society the child must master the target language. This motivation is quite weighty,
especially when compared to the motivation that adults have, or rather, must find. Adult motivations
usually fall into one of two categories: "integrative motivation (which encourages a learner to acquire
the new language in order to become closer to and/or identify themselves with the speakers of the
target language) or instrumental motivation (which encourages a learner to acquire proficiency for such
practical purposes as becoming a translator, doing further research, and aiming for promotion in their
career)". Either one of these types of motivation must be prevalent for successful acquisition to take
place.

c. Egocentricity

The final change that takes place, and changes language learning has to do with egocentricity. Children
are naturally egocentric. While learning their language they are not afraid to make mistakes, and in
general, they do not feel abashed when they are corrected. Also, their thoughts usually do not surpass
their language ability. Adults, on the other hand usually suffer form a fairly large amount of language
learning anxiety. Adults often "feel frustrated or threatened in the struggle of learning a different
language". Mistakes are seen more as failures then as opportunities for growth. "The adult learner may
also feel greatly frustrated, for being only able to express their highly complex ideas at a discourse level
of an elementary school pupil". These new emotions leave an adult learner in a slightly helpless position,
unable to regain the egocentricity of their childhood, which is just on more hindrance in a line of many.

d. Experience with another language

In the process of learning a second language, a learner experiences something different from his mother
tongue. The first language has no experience with another language, while the learner of the second
language has already learnt one language in his child hood. In the second language, he finds different
vocabulary; grammar structures and so on are totally different from his mother tongue.

e. Process of learning

Learning of the first language is a natural process. A person learns his mother tongue in a natural way.
There is the strongest social compulsion for the child, to pick up his mother tongue. For the second
language learner, the compulsion may not be strong and the class rooms activities helping him to learn
may be artificial graded and selected items are exposed.

f. Time limit
In first language acquisition one has a choice of time that means the learner decided his time that when
to learn. Nobody can force him because it happens in society whereas second language learner has to
keep in the mind in the mind the time of teacher. And he is forced by his teachers to learn. So, first
language learner learns by his own language learner has to keep in mind the time given by the expert.
In first language acquisition, children spend several years listening to language, babbling, and using
telegraphic speech before they can form sentences. In second language acquisition in older learners,
learning is more rapid and people are able to form sentences within a shorter period of time.