1st Language vs. 2nd Language Acquisition

First vs. Second Language Acquisition

I am currently applying for a TESOL position that requires intermediate knowledge of Spanish. English is my primary language, and despite having studied Spanish throughout high school and into college, I find my conversational skills lacking. In preparation for the interview I have been meeting with my friend Freddy, a certified biology teacher from Mexico who wishes to improve his English speaking skills, to practice. One week we speak entirely in English, the next completely in Spanish. But as the window of time narrows between practicing for the interview and actually participating in it, I have become increasingly nervous about our all-Spanish sessions even to the extent that we had two English sessions back-to-back. Frustrated with myself, I tried a new approach. I realized that when I rushed to meet Freddy after a hard day’s work, my brain flooded with problems and stressors in English. I went to a cafe to prepare answers to questions about my teaching and work experience in Spanish: I sat for over an hour, relaxing and conjuring words from my memory in Spanish. When I met Freddy at the library, he was shocked. I was speaking fluidly, I called to mind correct verb conjugations that I had previously forgotten, and I laughed at myself when I made a mistake: I had suddenly become the confident speaker of a secondary language, and it had everything to do with thinking before speaking.

I have noticed that my Spanish reading and writing abilities are consistent, that I can access these skills and expect the same results at any time; my Spanish speaking, however, depends heavily on my comfort level, on my motivation to engage myself, and on my confidence as a speaker of a new language. This confession may sound like standard description of language learning, but my frustration is symptomatic of the broader problem of how languages are taught in the classroom worldwide. With too much emphasis on reading and writing skills, as well as formal grammar removed from context, students of a second language struggle to accumulate skills that allow them to converse in their new language. Traditional methods are often employed in the teaching of languages. Significantly, these methods follow the primary education that informs first language acquisition: observation and informal practice. Formal instructional methods will not work if students are not granted time to listen to and practice the language in a comfortable setting. The successful student of a second language dares to be as experimental as the young, first language learner, and yet maintains the ability to reflect on progression and on roadblocks preventing it. He or she must be able to make mistakes and move on, to act on both instinct and memory.

We are quick to presume the natural aptitude of the young learner and annex the ability of acquiring a second language with ease from the capability of the adult (and even young adult) brain. While it is important to distinguish the young learner from the older for the purposes of lesson planning, this should not lead us to the solution of silent, private language learning as opposed to vocalizing language in conversational settings. For decades immersion has been privileged as the best means of second language acquisition, and yet how often is it employed in classrooms? The majority of class time should be devoted to discussion, and more vocabulary should be introduced through speech. Since the process of speech production in any language happens most often in an organic manner, second language training should prepare students for situations they will encounter when they travel or meet someone to converse with, not situations wherein they search for answers by consulting outside written sources, record these, and memorize their exact construction. More time should be spent on vocal drilling, on listening, and, especially, on speaking in discussions. With the use of visual aids, worksheets, and textbooks, teachers can equip students with vocabulary and grammatical knowledge. By provoking stimulating discussion in the classroom and providing students with the desire to engage themselves, teachers can help them to start thinking in their new language so that it becomes smoother, more natural, and a part of their daily experience.

Second Language Acquisition

This article will briefly describe the theory of the acquisition of a second language put forth by Stephen Krashen, a professor of linguistics at the University of Southern California, and author of over 100 books and articles on the topic. 

A lot of literature exists on the subject of language acquisition and there is quite often disagreement regarding how we learn, and how best to teach a second language. The main thrust of Krashen’s theory consists in his five hypotheses: 

1- The Acquisition versus Learning hypothesis

This is fundamentally the base of Krashen’s theory: He makes a distinction between the acquisition of a language (which happens on a subconscious level much like the way children learn a first language) and learning through the conscious study of a language (which he believes is more like a language appreciation exercise). Krashen believes and purports to have extensive data which supports the notion that students who study a language in the traditional grammar lesson and drilling scenario acquire the language much more slowly than those who subconsciously ?pick up? the language by exposing themselves to comprehensible examples of it. 

2- The Monitor hypothesis 

The ?Monitoring? process is activated by a language learner when he or she is trying to convert acquired language into structures learned through formal instruction. This process in effect monitors and edits the acquired language and comes into play only if the language learner a) has enough time, b) knows and understands the appropriate rules, and c) focuses enough to think about them. Krashen has divided language learners vis-a- vis the monitor function into three groups: 

Over-users are L2 speakers whose fluency suffers greatly from the need to edit everything before or while speaking. He believes that people with low confidence or low self-esteem a more likely to be over-users.

Under users are L2 speakers who don’t edit anything (or very little) they say and apply nothing learned from formal lessons if in fact they ever had any. These types of speakers are more likely to be out- going extroverts.

Optimal users: Those who edit just the right amount, which Krashen believes should be very little, and correct or edit based on the feel of the language. 

3- The Natural Order hypothesis

Krashen believes that all learners basically acquire specific grammar structures in a predictable, fairly set order for a given language, regardless of age, what their first language is, or how they were exposed to the L2. He cautions however that this finding does not mean that syllabuses should be designed with a step by step grammar plan. Rather, he stresses that students exposure to comprehensible language as the key factor. They will acquire the structures in good time.

4- The Input hypothesis

This hypothesis contends that a language learner of a given level , say level I, will only improve and gain better proficiency when they are exposed to comprehensible language of level i+1. This basically means that a person will acquire new language and improve their abilities only when they have been exposed to and understood some language a little above their current level. 

5- The Filter hypothesis 

This hypothesis states that the penetration of comprehensible input is filtered or blocked out in effect, by the language learner’s anxieties, self-confidence and motivation. Krashen believes that the formal class model is an environment more conducive to stress and anxiety (and perhaps not the most interesting place either), making it a less than ideal scenario for acquiring language. 

In general, to sum up the major points of Krashen’s theory, he believes that the traditional model of grammar lesson followed by drilling is outdated and proven to be a less effective way to learn a language than to just be exposed to comprehensible (and comprehended) language input. The type of input a teacher can provide should not be determined by a ridged grammar based syllabus. Rather it should be comprehensible and interesting so that the students are focusing on the content of the material, not the language itself. The language will be acquired over time subconsciously as long as the students understand it and are interested in the material. Krashen says that this does not mean that there is no place for grammar in the classroom, but that students and teachers alike often fool themselves into believing the grammar lesson itself is the reason that students benefit from the lesson, rather than from the exposure to the language itself as the lesson is being conducted and understood by the students, as he contends. 

I believe all this means that those of us who do teach grammar should not necessarily abandon our approach altogether. But if one is to believe in the theories and studies of modern linguistic researchers like Krashen, what we can learn is the importance of making our lessons fun, interesting, slightly challenging and above all, understandable. 

1st Language v 2nd Language

First language, sometime referred to as `Mother tongue’ or `Native language’ is generally our earliest and most natural language learning. It commonly means the first spoken language which we naturally acquire through the influence of our parents, and the environment which we grow up in during our most formative years. Second language, is usually an acquired or learned language ability which most people first experience, through secondary or further education. The difference this highlights is that your `natural’ or first language tends to be absorbed sub-consciously, whereas additional language learning becomes a studying process at a conscious level. It is unlikely for anyone to become as natural with a second or even third language as they are with their first language, by means of learning alone. Certain aspects need to be absorbed for true fluency. 

I would like to detail my own additional language experiences as a case in point. My first experience of a second language was when I began French lessons at secondary school. It was compulsory for the first two years and I enjoyed it and was reasonably proficient. It was taught solely on a grammar, vocabulary memorising basis and so I had no exposure to natural spoken French. As a result, I can still remember a lot of written or individual phrases thirty years later, but if someone spoke to me in French, I would be totally lost. My next exposure to language was when I met and married my wife Panayiota. She is Greek Cypriot and arrived in England in 1977, at the age of 14 years old with no English whatsoever. She missed her schooling through the war in Cyprus. However, she did have her final two years of secondary education in England. By the time we met in 1982, she was totally fluent in speaking English but had a few problems with writing and spelling. In her own words she would describe herself as `pretty dumb’ and certainly not a linguistic genius. So how could she achieve this, when after almost the same equivalent time of formal teaching, I could not really speak French. Obviously, living on a day to day basis with another language is a major factor but the point I feel is most important is necessity. She did it because she had to, and at some sub-conscious level, she was aware of this, and so she was able to absorb the language the same way a very young child could. Below are listed the details and abilities of the rest of Panayiota’s family and it is interesting how their language abilities emerge even though they all arrived at the same time. 

Yiannis Paphitis - Father - Worked since he arrived in the family restaurant dealing with the public. Language ability - poor, speaks only Greek, except for food items and football teams.

Katelou Paphitis - Mother - Mostly stayed at home though later helped in the business. Language ability - almost nil, speaks only Greek.

Nicos Paphitis - Brother 2 years older - He was too old for school on arrival so worked full-time in the restaurant as a waiter. Language ability - totally fluent verbally, written English a little weak. Has a slight accent.

Andreas Paphitis - Brother 2 years younger - Had full secondary education in England. Language ability - speaks and writes fluently. Has no discernible accent.

Katina Paphitis - Sister 5 years younger - Had some primary and full secondary education in England. Language ability - totally fluent in both written and spoken English. Has an English accent.

Mihales Paphitis - Brother 8 years younger - Had full primary and secondary education in England. Language ability - totally fluent in both written and spoken English. Has an English accent.

At home only Greek was spoken between the parents, and the parents to children. So their learning came from the need to adapt to their new environment. Why didn’t this environment have the same effect on their parents? Socially, they didn’t have to acquire the language. The children on the other hand were forced for social and practical reasons to acquire language quickly and this they all did successfully. The affect this has had on me, is that after many years of living and working together, I can speak and understand Greek, mostly colloquially. But I cannot read or write it as I have never been taught any formal language. 

As for my three daughters, they grew up with English and Greek spoken in their home environment, had full education in England plus attended Greek school for two hours every week from the age of 5. They have had the perfect possible environment for 2nd language acquisition, but they will not speak a word of Greek, even to their grandparents.

In conclusion, there are a multitude of variables when trying to learn a second language. Even when there is a perfect environment for natural acquisition, necessity plays a major part. When there is only formal learning, the basic grounding is satisfactory but there is no natural exposure and if you have only natural exposure without supporting lessons then other aspects of language are lacking. In order to acquire a second language to compete with your `Mother tongue’ you need the correct environment, the proper learning structure, natural exposure and a need to do so really helps. 

1st Language vs. 2nd Language Acquisition

There is a basic and observable outcome of language skills acquisition between first language (L1) learners and second language (L2) learners. L1 learners will just about always acquire their language to a native-speaking level. L2 learners will, more often than not, never really acquire the L2 to the same level of fluency that they have acquired their L1; and if they do, their ability in L1 is often sacrificed to acquire the L2. What this means for the English learner is that their English may never really reach native- like competency. Most learners go into the classroom without having a completely clear picture of what level of competency they can expect to achieve. It may be important for learners to be more aware of this when they begin studying English.

One of the more difficult things to factor into a language-learning course is the ability of the students. There are students who are exceptional at language acquisition, and there are those who have more difficulties than most, the vast majority is somewhere in between. Some may be able to reach perfect bilingualism, eventually learning English with no expense at all to their mother tongue. Most will, however, learn English with a distinct tell tale sign of what their L1 is. The caricature of the English language learners and the particular aspects of their pronunciation has been used many times, often to comedic effect. An example is the character of Inspector Clouseau played by Peter Sellers in the ‘Pink Panther’ series and how he pronounces his English with a ‘typical’ French accent. There are caricatures of Asian learners, German language learners, Spanish language learners and learners from most other major linguistic groups. These caricatures are all derived from the process, and result, of L2 acquisition and how the L1 of the language learner ‘interferes’ with, in our context, their English.

L2 learners should strive towards attaining a native-like level of English as possible, but the students should be aware of the constraints present. Most L2 learners will naturally strive for native-like competency and may be of the idea that acquiring it is subject to the same constraints as acquiring their L1. Research, for example, Grosjean (1982), is increasingly concluding that L1 and L2 acquisition does not undergo the same processes. In acquiring L1, the learner forms phonological, semantic, grammatical and other linguistic patterns that become a matter of routine. When that student then begins to acquire his or her L2, the patterns formed when acquiring the L1 ‘interfere’ with the patterns required by the L2. This is most obvious in phonology, and that is where we get the characterization of a ‘typical’ French, German, Japanese, etc, English speaker.

In practical terms, to the L2 learner of English, this asks him or her to try and determine where to place the bar for expectations. Individual ability will have a lot to do with the learning outcome, but generally, the L2 English language learner should be aware that it will require enormous sacrifice to reach native-like competency and that perfect bilingualism is the rare exception rather than the standard rule. The learner can expect to acquire English to a level that provides communication and comprehension at the most advanced level, but there will probably be some features of the learner’s English that is colored by his or her L1. For most learners, sacrificing competency in their L1 is probably not something they want to do, and for most English teachers, a trend toward global monolingualism is probably not something they would like to be held responsible for. Most English teachers are not in the classroom to create perfect English speakers, they are there to teach the art of communication in English, and the very diverse outcomes of that learning, is what makes second language teaching so compellingly rewarding.