Are Children Better In Learning Second Language Than Adults - Article Example

LANGUAGE ACQUISITION Are children better in learning Second language (L2) than adults? This article evaluates the idea of ‘age factor’ in language development which has been considered as a controversial topic for decades. This review highlights some of the early perceptions emerging from the previous age-related articles; focusing on the results of some empirical investigations. In this paper, I have tried to assemble some of the misconceptions about the myth that children learn second language (L2) faster than adults. Differentiating the learning strategies of children and adult According to dictionary, ‘language’ means the system that is used to comprehend each other’s feelings and thoughts. ‘Acquisition’ is determined as an involuntary course which leads to fluency. Children learn by: hearing and watching; imitating and acting; reckoning rationally and spontaneously; memorizing and imagining. Contradictory theories: There is a wide variation in the beliefs and theories of different researches found. McLaughlin (1992) describes the first myth that children can learn faster than adults; they can speak without a foreign accent, which is quietly not possible for adult learners. Ellis, 2008; Larsen-Freeman, 2008; Mayberry & Lock, 2003, state that younger children learn L2 easily and more quickly than older children. They have more advantages and opportunities over older. However, Light Bown and Spada (2008) suggest in the light of their findings that older learners have a higher ability of problem solving and meta-linguistic approaches than younger. Some researchers consider the learners’ pronunciation, syntax and grammatical morphemes. This idea is being supported by CPH, ‘Critical period Hypothesis’ (Krishna K. Bista, n.d.). A Critical Period Hypothesis (CPH) McLaughlin (1992) cites the assertions of Lenneberg (1967); and Penfield & Roberts (1959) explain the literal meaning of CPH as ‘a critical period is a limited time in which an event can occur, usually to result in some kind of transformation’, stating that children can learn language easily than adults because their brains are more flexible; their cortex is more flexible than older brains. Nevertheless, it seems logical to examine age-related differences in language learning, because virtually every learner undergoes significant physical, cognitive, and emotional changes at puberty (Hadley, 2002). Penfielf and Lenneberg’s statements Genesee’s (1999) article ‘Neuropsychological and second language acquisition’, explains about the relation of CPH to SLA. It was brought from biology. Penfield and Roberts (1959) and Lenneberg (1967) emphasize on the capacity of young child’s brain in transferring the function from one area to another (cited in Genesee, 1998). However some of the findings could not strengthen the idea of lateralization of brain functions only. The researches could not be conclusive. There might be some other factors like motivational schemes, environmental behaviors and emotional changes that can affect the superiority in learning ability of children over adults. Moreover, Lenneberg also suggests that plasticity of the brain is lost at puberty, therefore native-like mastery of languages, either first or second, is difficult. Brown (2000) explains in his essay ‘Principles of Language Learning and Teaching’ that most researches designate that CPH does not survive for all facets of second language acquisitions. Though there are many advantages of learning at early stage, there is a little evidence to support the idea that adults are unable to successfully learn a second language than children (Wagner, n.d.). J. Wagner’s theory There is no strong evidence that can prove the out-performance of children in all aspects of learning second language than adults. Some factors maybe misleading in attainment. For instance; children learn SLA in a natural setting; i.e. either at home, surroundings, friends, media etc. On the contrary, adults learn in a formal classroom setting. Adults acquire self-consciousness and shyness in speaking a foreign language; they are less likely to endeavor significant learning. Most colleges insist to take foreign language in order to graduate. Some students take foreign language to learn the language but they are not taught to learn effectively, some are even afraid to speak in class for fear of embarrassment (Wagner, n.d). Pedagogical techniques Crookes and Schmidt (1991) cited in Lightbown and Spada, (1999), pedagogical techniques are also useful in increasing adult’s motivational level. According to educational psychology, the techniques are preparing the learners for lessons, using co-operative activities rather than using competitive ones. These pedagogical techniques include various considerable points. Teachers should edify grammatical rules one at a time, uncomplicated composition should be reconsidered before going on to complicated ones, the learners should be corrected as soon as they make a mistake in order to restrain them from adapting that as bad habit. Teachers should encourage students to allow them to interact freely from each other’s mistakes. Krashen’s Input Hypothesis Alexandra Altenaichingers cited in his essay ‘Theories of Second Language Acquisition’ about Krashen’s input hypothesis. Stephen Krashen unified five hypothesis perceiving second language acquisition which are stated below The Learning : He stated the difference between acquisition and learning. Acquisition is a ‘subconscious’ while learning is a ‘conscious’ process. Acquisition is a discerning process of assembling the system of language, whereas learners concentrate to outline and figure out rules and are attentive of their own process (Brown, 2002). The observation The observation or monitor system deals with learning rather than acquisition. According to Krashen, sufficient time, focus on form and knowing the rules are necessary in observation. Editing or monitoring polished the requirements of acquired system production (Lightbown, spada 1991). The Natural order The language acquires the predictable rules that will not be necessarily used in exactly the same manner as they were attained in grammatical structures. The rules are very conventional. Generally, certain structures are liable to be obtained early and others are acquired late (Krashen, Terrell, 1983). The participation The learner should acquire the level of competence. The language that learners are attaining should be just far enough ahead of their existing competence level that they can understand most of it but still is confronted to make evolution (Brown, 2002). The emotional strain The researches showed that performers with finest approaches have a lower affective filter. Learners would easily acquire a language attainment when they are not emotionally distracted i.e. tensed, irritated, restless or uninterested. Performers are more open to the input language called low sift (Krashen, Terrell, 1983). Deviating Krashen’s assumptions McLaughlin opposed ambiguous theory of Krashen’s distinction between subconscious and conscious learning processes. According to Brown, ‘second language learning is a process in which varying degrees of learning and of acquisition can both be beneficial, depending upon the learner’s own styles and strategies’ (Altenaichingers, 2002-03). Brown (1987) highly criticized the stern division between learning and acquisition. He stated that learning and acquisition are reciprocally restricted categories and cannot be acceptable since Krashen’s opening up conscious and subconscious processes to differentiate between learning and acquisition. There is no obvious severance into conscious and subconscious processes which lacks its basic logical essentials (Jungwirth, n.d). Age function: Michael H. Long’s views In the essay ‘Second language acquisition as a function of age’ Michael H. Long (1991) stated Johnson and Newport (1989) viewpoints of Lenneberg’s (1967). Lenneberg’ CPH has two versions: ‘exercise’ hypothesis and ‘maturational state’ hypothesis. Exercise hypothesis clasps that human has better learning language faculty at early age comparatively. However, if not exercised, it will withdraw or decline with the passage of time. The maturational state hypothesis states the idea that the capacity of learning language effectively will decline with the maturation level elevation even if it is used normally. Thus both hypotheses illustrate that children can do better than adults in learning L1.however in SLA, children will do not different than adults. Practice is significant “While it is debatable exactly how much deliberate shaping the average child receives, no one would claim that deliberate feedback and control over the child’s linguistic experience is necessary” (Moulton and Robinson, 1981). Practice is well-known to have a significant meaning in fully developed skill gaining, where it is held to be mechanism whereby controlled dispensation becomes automatized. (Vroman, n.d.) Barriers in learning SLA for adults According to Krashen, Long, and Scarcella, 1979, the ‘doubt’ and self-consciousness are the main impediments to the older language learners and teachers. They are not sure if they can learn new language. It is commonly belief that “the younger the better” in language learning. Nevertheless, many studies prove it wrong. Studies evaluating the differences in the rate of SLA in children and adults; showing that even though children may have a plus point in achieving native-like mastery confidence in the long run, adults actually learn languages more quickly than children in the early stages . The studies specify that attaining a functioning ability to converse in a new language may actually be easier and more rapid for the adult. (Schleppegrell, Mary, 1987-09) Moving parts such as motivation and self-confidence are very important in language learning. When such learners faced the traumatic and stressful learning situations, the fear of failure definitely elevated. The older person may also demonstrate greater uncertainty in learning. Therefore the teachers should help to diminish apprehension and construct self-confidence in the learner. (Schleppegrell, Mary, 1987-09) Conclusion Children are appropriate for L2 learning in amorphous, uninstructed environment where learning time is not inadequate. They will attain a higher level of performance if they have an enormous disclosure to TL for a long period of time. On the contrary, the adults’ unequivocal processing ability can take a short cut. They can learn faster in shorter span. There is a deficient verification to recognize the claim that maturational factor can attain the mastery of a second language entirely, or even primarily. (Bialystok, 1997). A child can not learn as much as an adult to attain forthcoming capability. A childs constructions and vocabulary is smaller and simple. For this reason, although in many cases a child appears to learn more quickly than the adult, research results characteristically designate that adult and adolescent learners perform better than children. (McLaughlin, 1992) References: Bialystok, Ellen, 1997, ‘The structure of age: in search of barriers to second language acquisition’, Second Language Research, SAGE journals online, 13 (2), 116-137, citing website http://slr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/13/2/116 Bista (n.d), Age as an Affective Factor in Second Language Acquisition, cited from www.esp-world.info/Articles_21/Docs/Age.pdf Crookes and Schmidt, 1991, ‘motivation: reopening the research agenda’, Language learning, © 2010 Language Learning Research Club, University of Michigan, 41 (4). Edited by Hammerl, Newby, Oct 2002- Jan 2003, SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION: The interface between theory and practice, Department of English Studies of the University of Graz, Austria. Hadley, 2002, Reviewing First and Second Language Acquisition, Niigata Studies in Foreign Languages and Cultures, 8, 37-48. Citing website http://www.nuis.ac.jp/~hadley/publication/languageacquisition_files/languageacquisition.htm Jungwirth (n.d), Language awareness, edited by Hammerl, Newby, Oct 2002- Jan 2003, SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION: The interface between theory and practice, Department of English Studies of the University of Graz, Austria. Krashen, Stephen D. and Tracy D. Terrell (1983) The Natural Approach Language Acquisition in the Classroom, Oxford: Pergamon Press Lightbown and Spada, 1999, How languages are learned, Oxford handbooks for language teachers, 2nd Ed. 164-168 Long (1991), ‘Second language acquisition as a function of age’, Progression and regression in language, edited by Hylstentam and Viberg © Cambridge University Press 1993. p.197 McLaughlin (1992), Myths and Misconceptions about second language learning, Educational practice report 5, Accessed from http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/pubs/ncrcdsll/epr5.htm Wagner (n.d) ‘Second language acquisition and age, accessed from http://www.ielanguages.com/documents/papers/SLA 20Project 201.pdf Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, Critical period, citing website http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_period Vroman, Robert. B, n.d. ‘The logical problem of foreign language learning’, Linguistic perspectives on second language acquisition, edited by Susan M. Gass, Jacquelyn Schachter, © copyrighted by Cambridge University Press. 1989 ess. 1989 Schleppegrell, Mary, 1987-09, ‘The Older language learner’, ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics Washington DC, published in http://www.language-learning-advisor.com/age-and-language-learning.html Read More