Andrew Moore word count 1,498

Discuss some of the similarities and

differences between first and second
language acquisition, and their
pedagogical implications,
based on theoretical perspectives and
your own experience
as a learner and/or teacher.

Language learning, whether first language acquisition (FLA) or second language

acquisition (SLA) shares many parallels and divergences. These shall be
examined in relation to the Krashen’s affective filter hypothesis (1982),
developmental sequences (Ellis 1984) with a focus on formulaic speech and
Vygotskian scaffolding and the zone of proximal development (ZPD) (in Chaiklin
2003). Next, universal grammar (UG) will be considered followed by a
discussion of the advantages FLA learners have over SLA learners from prenatal
exposure to the L1. Finally, schemata theory, interlanguage and emergent
language will be discussed. The pedagogical implications of each these points
will be discussed in turn.

Firstly, Krashen's affective filter hypothesis (1982) highlights a major difference

between SLA and FLA as FLA learners aren't subject to anxiety or ego in the
same way as SLA students. Ungrammatical speech produced by FLA learners
isn’t subject to corrective feedback by parents (Brown 1970), while adult SLA
learners, are often unwilling to make mistakes in the second language
classroom. The result is that FLA learner’s acquire language faster and with
more phonological accuracy than SLA students. The implications of this for SLA
are that carefully constructed class activities which minimize the risk of
student’s affective filters being raised should be adopted. These could include
pair work, fun language activities or games combined with a friendly teacher
who corrects mistakes in a sensitive way without embarrassing the learner, for
Andrew Moore word count 1,498

example by avoiding nominating individuals to give an answer or speak in front

of the class.

Developmental sequences (Ellis 1984) provide another similarity between SLA

and FLA. The silent period seems to exist for both types of learner and should
be accepted in the SLA classroom by exposing students to the L2 without
always requiring an output from them. This could be in the form of sustained
silent reading (Krashen 2007) or radio or TV programmes in the L2. The second
stage proposed by Ellis is formulaic speech. This has been researched by
Tomasello (2003) who found that FLA learner at the 2 or 3 word stage, form
short lexical chunks with a slot where a verb or noun can be substituted in
order to make a new meaning ( I want ball, I want toast). This efficient way of
processing language frees up mental processing power to think about the next
utterance. This has implications for SLA as the lexical approach also prescribes
using lexical chunks with slots whereby a word can be substituted. This
realization that human speech is largely formulaic has been championed by
Lewis who argues that language is lexicalized grammar not grammaticised lexis
(1993). I encourage my SLA learners to use lexical chunks and collocations and
have found it very effective in boosting communicative competence and
achieving more natural and native-like speech and writing in the L2.

Thirdly, scaffolding and the ZPD can be seen at work in both SLA and FLA. In
FLA it can clearly be seen when parents encourage and develop their children’s
speech with questions and extensions. In SLA this isn’t always true, Japanese
learners of English are often reported to have poor speaking skills (Shimaoka
1990). They have a great knowledge of vocabulary, but score low on
communicative competence. Scaffolding, whereby interaction is the cause of
acquisition, seems to be of great benefit to FLA learners but was largely
ignored in SLA until Vygotsky championed its cause. Recent evidence to
support ZPD as a pedagogical tool is discussed by Hallam (2002), who argues
that dividing primary school students into different ability groups de-motives
them and prevents them being exposed to the whole curriculum, limiting their
learning potential. She advocates small mixed ability groups within the same
class where students work at their own pace, their learning, presumably being
Andrew Moore word count 1,498

scaffolded by the more able students within the ZPD. It would be a bold move
to introduce this into SLA but would be an area worth researching.

A major difference between FLA and SLA is that children acquire their L1
whereas SLA learners learn the new L2. In FLA, not all language encountered by
the child is specifically graded to be comprehensible as it so often in the ESL
classroom. Child directed speech, Chafetz (1992) argues, is full of
ungrammatical structures and false starts. Children are subject to hearing adult
conversations, spoken utterances on TV and radio which are far beyond their
comprehension. Yet children as FLA learners seem to have no difficulty
acquiring their L1 grammatically and with a native accent by the ages of
around 7 from largely incomprehensible input. This is known as the poverty of
the stimulus and is where Chomsky argues that UG steps in, to explain how this
paradox between poor input and the child’s high quality, native like output can
exist. UG is conceived as a set of switches and parameters within the child’s
neural language centers, which, through exposure to the L1, become fixed and
allow the child to understand the rules of the L1. This has been evidenced by
the ‘wug test’ in which children are asked to predict the plural form of an
invented singular noun, ‘wug’. Invariably, the children produce ‘wugs’ as the
plural form, which is held up by Chomskians as evidence of UG as children’s’
switches and parameters have been set to extrapolate the rule for formation
of plurals in English by adding ‘s’ to even made up nouns. However, with SLA
learning, the poverty of the stimulus seems to disappear as teachers are
encouraged to provide SLA learners with a wealth of grammatically accurate,
comprehensible input. Krashen (1982) refers to this as i+1 whereby teachers
grade their language to the level of the learners and grammatical structures
are presented through course books in perceived order of difficulty.
Andrew Moore word count 1,498

SLA learners are at a disadvantage to FLA learners phonologically speaking. L1

interference whereby the phonotactic constraints of the L1 are transferred to
the new L2, result in SLA learners speaking with a strong accent. An Italian L1
speaker will attempt to use the equal syllable stress pattern of Italian when
speaking English for example, ignoring the fact that English is a syllable timed
language. Spanish learners’ English will be influenced by the phonotactics of
Spanish, in which an /s/ is preceded by an epenthetic /e/; resulting in /esku:l/.
This is distinct from FLA learners who are sensitized to the phonology of their
first language in the womb It has been found that children respond to and
prefer to imitate the melody contour of their mother’s L1(Mampe et al 2009).
This is hypothesized allow infants to better attract their mother’s attention and
foster bonding. By one year of age, a child’s phonological awareness of their L1
becomes fixed, in that they seem unable to distinguish between distinct
phonemes which are not part of their L1. In SLA this is not the case;
phonological patterns from the L1 are dominant along with the phonotactic
rules of the L1. This means that the SLA learner has difficulty in hearing and
producing differences in sounds which the native L1 FLA learner has no
difficulty in. Also, in FLA, the child is exposed to their L1 for most of their
waking hours. Thus the SLA learner need to be sensitized to the phonology of
the L2 by the teacher in terms of behaviouristic approaches such as 4odelling
and drilling of correct intonation, tonic syllable stress and word and sentence
stress in order to break down the fossilised patterns of their L1 which interfere
with their L2. As Lightbown & Spada argue:

“Errors produced by the second language learner are seen as first language
habits interfering with second language habits. This approach advises the
immediate treatment of learner errors.” (2006).

The issue of schemata, concepts of how the world and relations between
objects and actors function, with which to understand the world reveals
another difference between FLA and SLA. FLA learners are learning their L1
while simultaneously mapping the new language items against concepts and
relations in the world whereas SLA learners already have fixed schemata of
how the world works. The logical pedagogical principle which stems from this
is to activate and exploit SLA learners’ existing schemata in order to teach the
Andrew Moore word count 1,498

new L2. For example by activating students’ schemata of the lesson topic at
the start of the lesson, basing lessons on common everyday interactional
situations which the learners are familiar with in their own L1.

Finally, children as FLA learners begin from a point of having zero language
knowledge where as in SLA learners are at some point on a continuum
between their current knowledge of the L2 and the ideal end state of being a
proficient user (in Saville-Troike 2012). This concept is known as interlanguage
(Selinker 1972). This interlanguage itself could be focused on by the L2 teacher
by analyzing the types of grammatical and phonological errors which emerge in
the classroom which is then targeted with customized feedback to target and
improve L2 learners’ deficiencies. This is known in Dogme circles as targeting
emergent language (Thornbury 2000) and can provide a useful tool in language
teachers’ pedagogy.
Andrew Moore word count 1,498

References

Brown, R. & Hanlon, C. Derivational complexity and order of acquisition

in child speech. In Hayes, J.R, editor. Cognition and the development of
language. New York: Wiley: 1970. Pp11-53

Chafetz J, Feldman HM, Wareham NL. 'There car': ungrammatical

parentese.Journal of Child Language 1992 Jun;19(2):473-80.

Chaiklin, S. (2003). "The Zone of Proximal Development in Vygotsky's

analysis of learning and instruction." In Kozulin, A., Gindis, B., Ageyev,
V. & Miller, S. (Eds.)Vygotsky's educational theory and practice in
cultural context. 39-64. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Hallam, S 2002, Ability grouping in schools: a literature review. Institute

of Education, University of London, London.

Hanlon

Lewis, M. (1993). The Lexical Approach. The State of ELT and a Way
Forward. LTP

Krashen, S. 2007. "Extensive reading in English as a foreign language

by adolescents and young adults: A meta-analysis." International Journal
of Foreign Language Teaching 3(2): 23-29.

Krashen, S.D. (1981). Second Language Acquisition and Second

Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon.
Andrew Moore word count 1,498

Mampe et al. Newborns' Cry Melody Is Shaped by Their Native

Language. Current Biology, November 5, 2009; DOI:
10.1016/j.cub.2009.09.064

Saville-Troike, Muriel 2012, Introducing Second Language Acquisition,

e-book, accessed 04 November 2014,
<http://suss.eblib.com/patron/FullRecord.aspx?p=880649>.

Selinker, L. (1972), Interlanguage. International Review of Applied

Linguistics, 10, 209-241.

Shimaoka, T. & Yashiro, K. (1990) Team teaching in English

classrooms: An Intercultural Approach. Tokyo: Kairudo

Thornbury, Scott (February–March 2000). "A Dogma for EFL" (153).

IATEFL Issues. p. 2. Retrieved 2009-06-23.

Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory

of Language Acquisition, Harvard University Press.