What are the psychological and developmental differences between learning a first and second language - Essay Example

?Running Head: Language Learning Language Learning [Institute’s Language Learning Introduction One of the initial things that should strike any attentive parent is the speed as well as noticeable precision in which a child continues to learn his or her own language. This extraordinarily fast progress appears to ‘fly in the face’ of several acknowledged facts regarding the nature of language - so much so that it has turn out to be commonly recognized within the scientific society to consider language as well as learning as one of various totally unexplainable ambiguities that overwhelmed people in their lives on a daily basis (Gullberg & Indefrey, p. 221, 2006). Even the cleverest of scientists in the present day do not know where to start with attempting to unravel the variety of intricacies that all of language carries. Nevertheless, the child moves forward, apparently with little regard to this alleged anonymity and continues with little effort to break the ‘revered system’. To begin with, parents give very little in the way of language training to the child; opposite to what some might accept as true, parents do not instruct their children to talk. The majority of parents would not even have the means in which to explain language clearly to a child even if they would like to do so. Actually, parents use the majority of time correcting falsehoods instead of correcting incorrect grammars. If someone is a casual observer, he would believe children grow-up being little lawyers trying to find out facts instead of little linguists trying to find out proper assumptions to their language. Children will go on to lie with the intention of gritting a benefit, whereas, without exception, eventually learning their mother language. By the time a child goes into pre-school, he has roughly mastered a lot of his target language. Nonetheless, taking into consideration these extraordinary accomplishments, children do appear to undergo contrasting levels of stages along the way to their complete mastery. It is this idea of phases of learning that has attracted the developmental linguists for the most part (White, p. 25, 2003). Difference between Learning First and Second Language Everyone, more or less without exception, handles to effectively learn a first language. By the time a child is 5 years old he has developed an intricate verbal language structure and can communicate his requirements, wants, feelings and emotions. However, there is still a long way to go. From the ages of 6 to 12 years, children carry on to make their verbal language more refined and become skilled at reading and writing for a range of contexts. Even as grown-ups, people carry on to develop the first language - including fresh expressions, developing more intricate reading, and writing expertise. Learning a second language is as well a continuing procedure. One can never actually declare that he is completely familiar with a language. Learning a second language is a similar method to learning a first language in that one undergoes developmental phases and depend on native speakers to give good comprehensible models of the language. However, several other factors have an effect on it, including what the first language is, how educated the individual is in his first language and the child’s approach to the new language and culture (O’Malley & Chamot, p. 129, 1990). Proficiency in the first language is very critical in developing proficiency in a second language. If the child can shift abilities from the first to the second language learning, the new language will be a lot simpler. These not just incorporate literacy abilities but also educational proficiencies, thinking skills, subject understanding and learning approach (Bhatia & Ritchie, p. 236, 2009). A lot of individuals believe that young children are the most excellent language learners. One of the huge benefits of younger language learners is that they develop outstanding accent skills; however, younger language learners run the threat of learning a fresh language at the cost of their first language. They do not learn a new language more rapidly as is usually considered. Nonetheless, their lack of self-consciousness and our approval of their imperfect but developing language abilities make it seem as if it is much more convenient for young children to learn a new language. In fact, research has proved that adult learners are more competent at learning a language for the reason that they can shift skills, as well as knowledge from their first language. Modern research proves that 11 to 13 years of age is the best age to begin learning a new language, when first language expertise is on the way to being strong. Of course, a lot of people in emigrant circumstances do not have an option as to when their children gain knowledge of a new language. It then turns out to be critical for first language as well as second language development to go on at the same time. Children can gain knowledge of a new language at the same time as still developing their first language. In fact, it can be supportive. This is known as positive bilingualism (Robinson & Ellis, p. 413, 2008). The primary area of difference between first language and second language learning is input - specially the value and amount of input. The language learning process relies on the input rate as well as reliability. It is at this point, where one discovers the maximum difference between first language and second language acquisition. The amount of exposure to a target language a child acquires is huge in comparison with the amount a grown-up gets. A child takes notice of the language the entire day on a daily basis, while a grown-up learner may just pay attention to the target language inside the classroom, which could be as small as three hours a week. Even if one observes a grown-up in a complete submersion state, the amount is still less for the reason that the amount of ‘one on one’ contact that a child acquires such as with a parent or other caregiver is still much bigger than the grown-up is getting (Bhatia & Ritchie, p. 308, 2009). This thought of ‘one on one’ contact versus a classroom setting also ties in with the thought of quality. It is as well much convenient for a close relative or caregiver to engage the child in what he is learning. It is tough, though, for an educator to make the topic being educated pertinent to the students' lives. This can cause a lack of focus, as well as a lack of enthusiasm (Bhatia & Ritchie, p. 227, 2009). The subsequent great and apparent difference between first language and second language learning is age. A large part of this guide of consideration is the plan of a critical phase, or the time subsequent to which successful language learning cannot occur. This time is generally associated with teenage years. This modification is considerable, as almost every learner goes through major physical, cognitive, and emotional changes all through the teenage years (Johnson, p. 213, 2003). One goes through three main physical changes in regards to language learning. The first is the existence of muscular plasticity. A child's plasticity goes away around the age of 5. After this age, it is very difficult for a learner to completely master accent of a second language. The second change is one's memorization aptitude. It is quite familiar that as an individual grows older his capability to hold large quantity of information arrives at its peak rather early in life, and after that, starts to decline. The third physical change that takes place is more associated to neurology (Turnbull & O’Cain, p. 55, 2009). As a child goes into middle age, the left hemisphere turns out to be more dominant as compared to the right side. The one benefit grown-ups appear to have on children is their cognitive capacity. Grown-ups are better able to gain from learning regarding structure and grammar. Unfortunately, this small gain in ability does not facilitate grown-up in second language acquisition generally. Actually, this capacity almost deters them in that they evaluate a lot. Specially, they cannot abandon what they know regarding their first language, which leads to an inclination to overanalyze as well as to work out what they are learning (Meier, p. 65, 2004). The final area that teenage years modify is inside the emotional, or sentimental, sphere. Emotional change mostly has an effect on enthusiasm. A child's enthusiasm is plain. With the intention of communicating, and being a part of family and society, the child must master the target language. This enthusiasm is fairly important, particularly in comparison with the enthusiasm that grown-ups have, or rather, have to discover (Bhatia & Ritchie, p. 271, 2009). Grown-ups’ enthusiasm generally fall into one of two groups; first is integrative enthusiasm, which supports a learner to get the new language so as to become closer to themselves and to recognize themselves, second is instrumental enthusiasm, which supports a learner to get expertise for such realistic functions as becoming a translator, doing additional research, and intending for promotion in their profession. Either one of these forms of enthusiasm must be common for successful learning to take place (King & Mackey, p. 230, 2007). The final change that occurs, and changes language learning has to do with self-interest. It has been an observation that children are naturally egotistic. While learning their language, they are not scared to make blunders, and generally, they do not feel humiliated when someone corrects them. In addition, their ideas generally do not outshine their language capability. Grown-ups, in contrast, generally suffer form a large amount of language learning nervousness. Grown-ups usually feel irritated or intimidated in the effort of learning a different language. Errors are observed more as failures than as prospects for development. In particular, “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” (Pearson, p. 231, 2008). These new emotions leave a grown-up learner in a somewhat weak position, incapable to get back the egotism of their youth, which is just one more obstruction in a list of various. Even though the preferred results of child’s first language acquisition and adult second language acquisition are just the same, the real results are actually pretty different. Issues such as enthusiasm, excellence and amount of input as well as a lack of egocentrism, among several other issues, will perpetually stand in the path of adult second language learning. “When we talk about learning a language, and perhaps when we learnt a language, we focus on the mechanics of the language – the nouns and verbs, the correct use of tenses, pronunciation and vocabulary. Perhaps our competency in a language was measured in terms of grammatically correct sentences and accurate translations. However, we expect our children to do much, much more than this. We not only expect them to use English correctly but we expect them to gain knowledge and skills in every curriculum area in this new language. We not only expect them to learn a language, we expect them to learn in a new language” (Freeman & Freeman, p. 190, 2001). Therefore, as well as developing the technicalities of the language, learners have to learn to think in this new language and develop educational abilities as well as knowledge. In addition to this, one need to think that the child may not be familiar with the learning, as well as teaching approaches of the new school, they take time to settle in the new school or country and they may miss their residence as well as their home language. All of these issues have an effect on how well a child learns a new language (Ellis, p. 301, 1986). The emotional basis takes the shape of the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis. This is presents in a strong as well as a weak form. The strong form argues that all second language errors can be guessed by classifying the variations between the target language and the learner’s first language. “It stipulates that the prime cause, or even the sole cause, of difficulty and error in foreign language learning is interference coming from the learner’s native language. The strong form of the hypothesis was common before research began to show that many of the errors produced by second language learners could not be traced to the first language learners” (Gass & Selinker, p. 67, 2008). The weak form of the theory claims just to be diagnostic. A contrastive study can be utilized to make out which mistakes are the results of interference. As a result, in accordance with the weak theory, Contrastive Analysis requires to work together with an Error study. Implied in the weak side is the supposition that not the entire errors are the outcome of interference. The weak form claims a less dominant part for the first language as compared to the strong form of the theory (Krashen, p. 296, 1982). The strong form of the theory has a small number of followers these days. It is now obvious that the first language is not the only, and perhaps not the main reason of grammatical mistakes. Nonetheless, the weak form is not very gratifying. It makes little logic to carry out an extensive evaluation of two languages only to verify that mistakes alleged of being interference errors are really so. This is a fake process. In order to theorize that the errors in a body are interference errors, a genuine contrastive analysis should have taken place (Bhatia & Ritchie, p. 37, 2009). Preferably, the emotional aspect of Contrastive Analysis should manage the situations in which interference takes place. That is to say, it should give an explanation for occurrences when linguistic variations between the first and second languages initiate transferring errors and instances when they do not. It is not feasible to guess or explain the presence or absence of transfer errors only in terms of linguistic variations among the first and second languages that an emotional explanation is required (Kasper & Rose, p. 64, 2003). One potential variable is the setting in which it occurs. While interference need not be a key reason in naturalistic second language acquisition, it will constantly be present within classroom or foreign language learning. In naturalistic second language acquisition, learners have the option of extensive as well as intensive contacts with the target language; however, within classroom, second language acquisition learners will always utilize their first language between classes, and this reinforces hands-on inhibition. One more variable may be the learner’s phase of development. There are quantitative variations in errors generated by basic and intermediate learners. While the former depend on transfer, the latter depend to a greater degree on overgeneralization of target language regulations. There is, on the other hand, no evidently expressed hypothesis that sheds light on how such variables as kind of learning, as well as phase of development have an effect on the methods of transfer. A most important fault of Contrastive Analysis has been the need of a highly sensitive emotional theory. This has been one of key sources of criticism of contrastive study. Second languages are learnt instead of first languages and so second language learners are generally elder as compared to first language learners. Despite the fact that this may appears to be a clear point, yet it requires stating that features connected with growing elder, for instance, more mature cognitive, as well as emotional development must unavoidably be likely to have an effect on second language learning. For instance, it has regularly been recommended that young persons as well as grown-ups can utilize more alert mental processing than the innate processing of the child. Moreover, in the emotional sphere it is at times experienced that the variations among what a learner would like to say in a second language and what he can say in his first language is annoying in a way similar to the stress on the native child to exchange a few words. Additionally, second language learners have quite different incentives as well as attitudes from first language learners, even if it is difficult to say precisely what encourages a child to learn his first language. Finally, second language learners have frequently learnt to read and write in their first language and this causes them to move toward language learning in a different way (Bialystok & Hakuta, p. 212, 1995). The Critical Period Hypothesis It is a biologically determined phase of life for language acquisition. The critical phase suggestion declares that there is such a biological schedule. Originally, the idea of a critical phase was associated simply to first language acquisition. Pathological studies of children who attained their first language, or phases thereof, turns out to be fuel for arguments of biologically determined inclinations, timed for release, which would vanish if the proper environmental stimuli were not there on the crucial phase. The classic argument is that a decisive point for second language acquisition takes place around teenage years, beyond which individuals appear to be somewhat incompetent of acquiring a ‘native like’ pronunciation of the second language. This has directed a few to suppose, wrongly, that by the age of 12 or 13 the children are "past their prime" when it comes to the prospect of successful second language learning. With the intention of observing these issues one will look at neurological and psychomotor concerns initially; these will afterward followed by an assessment of cognitive, emotional, and linguistic concerns (Turnbull & O’Cain, p. 95, 2009). Neurological Concerns One of the most interesting parts of inquisition in second language learning has been learning of the role of the brain in the course of learning. There is proof in neurological study that as the human brain matures some functions are given to the left hemisphere of the brain and some other tasks to the right hemisphere. Logical, commonsensical, as well as systematic functions seem to be found in the left hemisphere whereas the right hemisphere manages tasks associated to emotional as well as communal requirements. Left hemisphere manages the language function, despite the fact that there is a fine deal of contradictory data. While question regarding how language lateralization occurs in the brain are interesting certainly, a more essential issue for second language researchers has focused on when lateralization occur, and how that lateralization process has an effect on language learning. According to researches (Mitchell & Myles, p. 210, 2004), lateralization is a slow process that starts near the age of 2 and is completed around teenage years. Throughout this time, the child is neurologically conveying tasks gradually to one side of the brain or the other; incorporated in these tasks, of course, is language. In addition, children up to the age of teens who go through wound to the left hemisphere are capable to re-localize linguistic tasks to the right hemisphere, to re-learn their first language with comparatively little harm. Plasticity of the brain before teenage years allows children to learn not only their first language but a second language as well (Mitchell & Myles, p. 210, 2004). Psychomotor Concerns An issue directly connected to strictly neurological concerns is the function of the psychomotor synchronization of the ‘speech muscles’ in learning second language, or, more generally, pronunciation. One can understand the fact that provided the existence of quite a lot of muscles that are used in the verbalization of human communication, a remarkable level of muscular power is necessary to get the fluency of a native speaker of a language. At birth, the speech muscles are developed merely to the point that the larynx manages continued cries. These speech muscles slowly develop, and power of a few difficult sounds in certain languages usually not attained until the age of 5, despite the fact that virtually entire phonemic power is there in most 5 year old children. Children who learn a second language following the age of 5 may have a substantial improvement in that phonemic power of second language (Bhatia & Ritchie, p. 378, 2009). It is essential to remember in all these concerns that accent of a language is not by any way the single decisive factor for learning, nor is it actually the most significant one. The achievement of the communicative as well as efficient uses of language is far more significant. Cognitive Concerns Human cognition develops quickly during the initial 16 years of life and less quickly following middle age. A few of these alterations are decisive; others are steadier and not easy to notice. Jean Piaget summarizes the path of intellectual progress in a child by different phases; first is the sensorimotor phase from ages 0 to 2, second is the preoperational phase from ages 2 to 7, and third is the operational phase from ages 7 to 16. Emotional Concerns Humans are emotional beings. At the heart of all thinking and meaning and act is emotion. As logical as we would be fond of to thinking we are, we are under the control of our emotions (Gullberg & Indefrey, p. 239, 2006). The emotional domain incorporates several factors like compassion, self-respect, companionability, self-consciousness, imitation, nervousness, and attitudes. A few of these may noticed initially rather far distant from language learning, however, when one think about the pervasive character of language, any emotional aspect can possibly be pertinent to second language learning. References Bhatia, T., Ritchie, W. 2009. The New Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Bialystok, E., Hakuta, A. 1995. In Other Words: The Science and Psychology of Second-language Acquisition. Basic Books. Ellis, R. 1986. Understanding Second Language Acquisition. OUP. Freeman, D. E., Freeman, Y. S. 2001. Between Worlds: Access to Second Language Acquisition. Heinemann. Gass, S. M., Selinker, L. 2008. Second Language Acquisition. Springer. Gullberg, M., Indefrey, P. 2006. The Cognitive Neuroscience of Second Language Acquisition. Wiley-Blackwell. Johnson, M. 2003. A Philosophy of Second Language Acquisition. Yale University Press. Kasper, G., Rose, K. R. 2003. Pragmatic Development in a Second Language. Wiley-Blackwell. King, K., Mackey, A. 2007. The Bilingual Edge. Harper Paperbacks. Krashen, S. D. 1982. Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Prentice Hall. Meier, D. R. 2004. The Young Child's Memory for Words. Teachers College Press. Mitchell, R. and Myles, F. 2004. Second Language Learning Theories. A Hodder Arnold Publication. O’Malley, J. M., Chamot, A. U. 1990. Learning Strategies in Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge University Press. Pearson, B. Z. 2008. Raising a Bilingual Child. Living Language. Robinson, P., Ellis, N. C. 2008. Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition. Routledge. Turnbull, M., O’Cain, J. 2009. First Language Use in Second and Foreign Language Learning. Multilingual Matters. White, L. 2003. Second Language Acquisition and Universal Grammar. Cambridge University Press. Read More