Second Language Acquisition: Differences between Children and Adults - Term Paper Example

Outline: A) language acquisition variables B) First language acquisition by infants and relation to second language acquisition (SLA) C) Young learner and older learner advantages in SLA. D) Reconciliation of opposing views Native language acquisition happens naturally and without problems for the majority of humans. It cannot be said about the second language acquisition which is rather complicated process involving many factors which impact its success. The purpose of this research paper is to view second language acquisition differences between young and adult learners. The paper covers different points of view on second language acquisition and mechanisms which underlie young and adult learner differences. Phenomena of language acquisition, language use and language deficiencies can be described at three levels: the levels of behaviour, cognition and the brain (Simon, 1992; Green et al., 1996: 5–7 in Hulstijn, 2002) According to researchers as Pinker (1997), Schumann (1998), Gray (1999) ‘cognition’ embraces not only ‘representation of knowledge (information) in the mind/brain, processing and acquisition of information’ but also emotion and motivation, developing and existing a social and cultural environment. (Hulstijn, 2002) Vygotsky also believed that cognition originates in social experience and language mediates between cognition and social experience and the difference between an individual’s present and potential capacities can be accessed within a ‘zone of proximal development.’ Vygotsky’s students developed the Activity Theory which suggests that analysing the components of human activities (motives, goals, interactions, etc.) provides insight into the development of consciousness. (Thomas, 2005) Neuroscience researches different brain areas engaged in language production. However, it has no precise knowledge of how brain part intact to produce knowledge. What is known is that there’s no single module in brain which is responsible for language. In understanding how language is ‘generated’ in the brain one should ‘investigate the component operations of language and their neural substrates.’ (Beeman & Chiarello, 1998) However, neuroscience lacks evidence to demonstrate how “the area of the brain where explicit knowledge resides (the medial temporal lobe and hippocampus) and the area which carries control (the frontal temporal lobe) could somehow collaboratively act as ‘instructors’ to other brain areas where implicit knowledge (skills, habits, reflexes) is created.” (Hulstijn, 2002 p.193) Language acquisition starts on the first years of life when children start to perceive acoustic signals and categorize them. From neurophysiologic point of view this means that “certain designated areas of the brain (for most individuals various areas of the left hemisphere) become specialized in storing and processing phonological and prosodic information for receptive and productive purposes.” (Fabbro, 1999 in Hulstijn, 2002 p.193). Thus Hulstijn (2002 p.193) assumes that infants are equipped with the “ability to perceive similarities in certain acoustic and visual stimuli, and the ability to store perceived similar stimuli in a manner that reflects these similarities.” In the study of Patkowsky (1994) about phonological acquisition there’s an assertion that “There is a period . . . during which it is possible, but not inevitable, for learners to acquire . . . full native-like fluency in the phonological system of a second language, and after which such a possibility does not exist anymore” (p. 206). Counterevidence for such an assertion is cases when adult learners achieved native-like phonological ability. (Bialystok, 1997) On the other hand research on the development of the phonetic system by Werker (1995) suggests that children are able to detect phonemic differences in languages irrespective of their knowledge. Phonetic sensitivity is not lost over time and changes in phonetic abilities across the ages are attributed to ‘functional reorganization’ of the linguistic system. Performance differences are not connected with hard-wiring of the brain but reflect “the operation of postperceptual processes that allow the infant to attend to only phonetic information that distinguishes meaning” (Werker, 1995 p. 99). Adults can overcome these difficulties through practice or training and can master new phonemes in any period of the life. Bongaerts et al. (1995) in the study of Dutch learners of English found that older learners could “achieve pronunciation levels indistinguishable from those of native speakers.” (p.35) White and Genesee (1996) also find no evidence that grammatical and phonological achievements differentiate depending on the age of a learner. Birdsong (1992) also prove that late learners excelled well in grammaticality judgement task along with young learners and native speakers. In the study of 10 native Mandarin speakers in their progress of six English grammatical morphemes acquisition no age-related differences were found. The research showed that learners of all ages made omissions errors, found the same morphemes easier or more difficult to learn, and performed better on irregular than regular verbs to the same degree. (Jia & Fuse, 2007) These findings in three specific aspects of acquisition suggest “the discontinuity of the language learning mechanism that is predicted by the critical period account.” However, second language learners face difficulties and make errors similar to monolingual children with language impairments, morphological errors should be interpreted with a caution and cannot be fully relied as indicators of language learning problems. (Jia & Fuse, 2007 p.1280) On the other hand there’s a large body of research which proves that younger learners outperform older learner in SLA. Important factors which impact second language acquisition are aptitude, awareness, and age. According to Bley-Vroman’s Fundamental Difference Hypothesis (FDH) differentiates between first language acquisition and second language acquisitions since ‘post-critical-period adults’ cannot rely on the same ‘innate’ mechanism which guides infants in the first language (L1) development. Instead they rely on L1 knowledge and ‘domain-general problem-solving procedures in L2 learning’ along with individual differences in abilities. (Robinson, 2001) So according to the FDH theory there are child–adult differences in language learning. Adults are more focused on general problem-solving abilities and their level of attainment varies greatly. However, this theory fails to explain the magnitude of variations in levels of attainment. (Robinson, 2001) The Fundamental Similarity Hypothesis (FSH) complements Bley-Vroman’s FDH. Both researches suggest “that age and aptitude(s) interact in predicting language learning, with precritical-period learning related to a different pattern of abilities than post-critical-period learning (as Bley-Vroman’s FDH predicts).” (Robinson, 2001) Adult learning is reported to be a result of the interaction between cognitive abilities and information processing demands of tasks. Thus variations in adult L2 learning outcomes can be explained by 1) ineffectiveness of the match between patterns of abilities and learning tasks; 2) differentiated (multiple aptitudes of the learners) or less differentiated abilities of the learners ( a stronger general aptitude factor). (Robinson, 2001) Puberty as a critical period for SLA was first suggested by Lenneberg (1967). The study of brain imaging during L2 processing at different ages introduced by Weber-Fox and Neville in 1999 proved the findings of Lenneberg as at the age 11 of learners some aspects of language showed discontinuity. However, at the same time others of their measures show a discontinuity at other ages which makes the data of Weber-Fox and Neville less reliable. (Foster-Cohen, 2001) Some researches attempted to show that L1 children and L2 learners make similar errors, suggesting that paths of language development have a parallel series of stages pointing to similar mechanisms underlying FLA and SLA. At the same time, differences between L1 and L2 data suggest of different mechanisms. Particularly it concerns “violations of putatively UG-constrained facets of grammar by L2 learners that are never violated by L1 learners.” (Foster-Cohen, 2001 p.239) The previous two opposing views concerning age factors in SLA can be reconciled by one more approach which can resolve contradictory claims. This approach is based on the assumption that the relationship between the languages impacts learning success. This means that learners succeed in mastering a structure which is present in both native and foreign language and have difficulty in mastering a structure lacking in the first language. Such differences in two languages can be a problem for both younger and older learners but they will find no difficulty in acquiring structures shared across two languages. These hypotheses were examined in the study of Bialystok (1997). The results prove the importance of relationship between two languages. Concerning age factors, the outcomes turned out to be surprising: age effect favoured older learners. The second discovery is that difficulties in acquisition of the language with structures different from native language occur in all learners irrespective of age. So the linguistic structure of the first language sets important boundaries and is fundamental for the study of the second language. In other words the linguistic knowledge acquired during first language development helps or hinders in the process of SLA. The age difference matters only in the choice of options to use first language knowledge in the process of SLA: adults tend to extend the existing categories (cf. assimilation) while children tend to create new categories (cf. accommodation). This seems to be natural process for children to create new categories while adults tend to consolidate knowledge and seek similarities. (Bialystok, 1997) As a result adults would have difficulty in SLA as they will most likely extend rules of the first language on the structures of the second language while children would create new categories quicker to acquire new structures of the second language. For this reason children tend to be better language learners. However, the reason is not in “maturational limits on language learning but in stylistic differences in learning at different times in life.” Thus as the researcher suggests child advantage has no biological basis. (Bialystok, 1997) So we can conclude that age differences in SLA are inconsistent. Older learners can even find advantage in certain kinds of tasks. There’s nothing extraordinary in perfect mastery of the language by late learners. Second language learning is possible for all age groups under favourable conditions and ability to recreate social, educational and experiential advantages. References Beeman, M. & Chiarello, C. (1998). Right Hemisphere Language Comprehension: Perspectives from Cognitive Neuroscience. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Bialystok, E. (1997).The structure of age: in search of barriers to second language acquisition. Second Language Research. 13, 116 Birdsong, D. (1992). Ultimate attainment in second language acquisition. Language 68, 706–55. Bongaerts, T., Planken, B. and Schils, E. (1995). Can late learners attain a native accent in a foreign language? A test of the critical period hypothesis. In Singleton, D. and Lengyel, Z. editors, The age factor in second language acquisition, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 30–50. Foster-Cohen, S. (2001). First language acquisition... second language acquisition: ‘What’s Hecuba to him or he to Hecuba? Second Language Research . 17, 239. Jia, G. & Fuse A. (2007). Acquisition of English Grammatical Morphology by Native Mandarin-Speaking Children and Adolescents: Age-Related Differences. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 50, 1280–1299 Hulstijn, J. (2002). Towards a unified account of the representation, processing and acquisition of second language knowledge. Second Language Research. 18, 193 Patkowsky, M. (1994). The critical age hypothesis and interlanguage phonology. In Yavas, M., editor, First and second language phonology, San Diego: Singular Publishing Group, 209–21. Robinson, P. (2001). Individual differences, cognitive abilities, aptitude complexes and learning conditions in second language acquisition. Second Language Research. 17, 368 Thomas M. (2005). Theories of second language acquisition: three sides, three angles, three points. Second Language Research. 21, 393 Werker, J (1995). Exploring developmental changes in cross-language speech perception. In Gleitman, L.R. and Liberman, M., editors. Language: an invitation to cognitive science, volume 1, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 87–106. White, L. and Genesee, F. (1996). How native is near-native? The issue of ultimate attainment in adult second language acquisition. Second Language Research 12, 233–65. Read More