Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Children's second language acquisition
Similarities and differences between language acquisition and second language acquisition
Similarities and differences between language acquisition and second language acquisition
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Children's second language acquisition
The topic of a critical period for language learning is a hotbed of discussion; there is substantial evidence to support the idea that certain elements of language are “easier” (or even critical) for people to learn and master at younger ages, such as syntax and phonology, but the debate rages on as to whether this is evidence of a critical period of overall language learning, and whether the critical period applies to the learning of a second language (Newport, 2002). The implications of such research and assertions are vast: not only for parents of young children, who may want to provide every advantage to their children, but also for young adults and the elderly.
Pro Side
The idea that language learning is limited by biology is not a new one; Eric Lenneberg introduced the idea and made some then-radical assertions in 1967 (Newport, 2002). Since then, numerous studies have been performed, followed by countless publications, struggling to define and delineate the critical period. E. L. Newport (2002) discusses several of these research studies, pointing out, for example, that neuropsychological technologies, such as fMRIs, indicate that participants who learn their second language after the age of seven demonstrate more divided brain activity than bilingual participants who learned a second language at an earlier age. Additionally, more recent research performed by DeKeyser, Alfi-Shabtay and Ravid (2010) supports the theory of an early critical period for language learning in that their research reveals participants experience a dramatic decline in grammatical skill acquisition up to the age of 18, after which the decline becomes almost negligible through to age 40. Beyond age 40, they find that the results are confounded ...
... middle of paper ...
...y may be past the ideal learning period, adults can learn a second language with great proficiency if they come equipped with adequate education and are properly motivated to learn.
Works Cited
DeKeyser, R., Alfi-Shabtay, I. & Ravid, D. (2010). Cross-linguistic evidence for the nature of age effects in second language acquisition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 31 (3), 413-438.
Hakuta, K., Bialystok, E. & Wiley, E. (2003). Critical evidence: a test of the critical period hypothesis for second language acquisition. Psychological Science, 14 (1), 31-38.
Newport, E.L. (2002). Critical periods in language development. (2002). Encyclopedia of cognitive science. London: Macmillan Publishers Ltd./Nature Publishing Group.
Stevens, G. (2004). Using census data to test the critical-period hypothesis for second-language acquisition. Psychological Science, 15 (3), 215-216.
The 'Secondary'. The dynamic systems approach in the study of L1 and L2 acquisition: An introduction. The Modern Language Journal, 92, 179-199.
There’s a long-standing argument that most people resort to when discussing whether or not children are better suited to acquire a language over adults. The “critical period hypothesis” argues, “that children are superior to adults in learning second languages because their brains are more flexible.” (McLaughlin 2) This argument is true to some extent, however, experimental research has found that adolescents and adults are able to acquire languages better based on their controlled environment. Children, on the other hand, are better able to grasp a better understanding of the pronunciation of languages compared to adults. (McLaughlin
After Lenneberg's (1967) advanced analyses and interpretation of critical period in regards to first language acquisition, many researchers began to relate and study age issue in second language acquisition. In this area of study, Johnson and Newport (1989) is among the most prominent and leading studies which tries to seek evidence to test the Critical Period Hypothesis (CPH) in second language (L2) acquisition. This study aims to find identifying answers to the question of age-related effects on the proficiency for languages learned prior the puberty.
For the purposes of this paper, I have defined adulthood as including any person who is at or above the age of eighteen, because there is so little research on language learning in early adulthood versus middle or late adulthood. It is not possible to find studies about particular divisions of adulthood that have been verified by subsequent research trials, so I have included research about all ages of adulthood. Throughout this paper, I will discuss the major aspects of the body of research literature that separates adult second language learning from that of natural bilingual persons, including full immersion into the language, biological and neurological factors, the structure of both the native and second languages, age of acqui...
There are three main theories of child language acquisition; Cognitive Theory, Imitation and Positive Reinforcement, and Innateness of Certain Linguistic Features (Linguistics 201). All three theories offer a substantial amount of proof and experiments, but none of them have been proven entirely correct. The search for how children acquire their native language in such a short period of time has been studied for many centuries. In a changing world, it is difficult to pinpoint any definite specifics of language because of the diversity and modification throughout thousands of millions of years.
Wolter. B. (2001). Comparing the L1 and L2 Mental Lexicon. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 23:41-69.
The stages of language knowledge develop by stages, and it is suggested, each successive stage approach more approximates the grammar of the adult usage.
How do children acquire language? What are the processes of language acquisition? How do infants respond to speech? Language acquisition is the process of learning a native or a second language. Although how children learn to speak is not perfectly understood, most explanations involve both the observations that children copy what they hear and the inference that human beings have a natural aptitude for understanding grammar. Children usually learn the sounds and vocabulary of their native language through imitation, (which helps them learn to pronounce words correctly), and grammar is seldom taught to them, but instead that they rapidly acquire the ability to speak grammatically. Though, not all children learn by imitation alone. Children will produce forms of language that adults never say. For example, “I spilled milk on hisself” or “Debbie wants a cookie”. This demonstrates that children have the desire to speak correctly and have self-motivating traits to communicate. This supports the theory of Noam Chomsky (1972)-that children are able to learn grammar of a particular language because all intelligible languages are founded on a deep structure of universal grammatical rules that corresponds to an innate capacity of the human brain. Adults learning a second language pass through some of the same stages, as do children learning their native language. In the first part of this paper I will describe the process of language acquisition. The second part will review how infants respond to speech.
Wilder Penfield and Lamar Roberts first introduced the idea that there is a “critical period” for learning language in 1959. This critical period is a biologically determined period referring to a period of time when learning/acquiring a language is relatively easy and typically meets with a high degree of success. German linguist Eric Lenneberg further highlights Roberts and Penfield’s findings and postulated the Critical Period Hypothesis in 1967. According to the Critical Period Hypothesis (CPH), certain biological events related to language development can only happen in the critical period. During this time, the brain possesses a degree of flexibility (ability and ease of learning a language) and becomes lateralized (assignment of language functions becomes concrete – either in the left or right hemisphere) (Marinova-Todd, S; Marshall, D & Snow, C. 2000 9-10). This critical period lasts from childhood through the onset of puberty (usually at around 12 years of age). Once this period is over, it is more difficult to learn a language because language functions in the brain have become concrete. This hypothesis can be seen with the case of Genie, a woman who was isolated from human interaction and language up to the age of 13. By the time she was rescued, she was well after the critical period for language acquisition, and as such, she did not have a full command of the English language. Had she been rescued before the age of 13, she may have had more linguistic capability. However, this accounts for firs...
The critical period hypothesis for language acquisition was popularized by neurologist Eric Lenneberg. The hypothesis suggests that if an individual is not exposed to language during a specific period in their childhood then they will have great difficulties acquiring language later in life (Redmond, 1993). I believe the two “wild children” cases of Genie and Victor provides evidence to support the critical period hypothesis. Genie’s case supports the hypothesis because although she developed a vocabulary and despite all of her intense therapy sessions, she still was not able to create meaningful and grammatically correct sentences (Garmon, 1994). Genie’s inability to create real sentences may indicate that she endured the extreme deprivation during her critical period and it prevented her from acquiring language. Victor’s case also supports the critical period hypothesis. The professionals in the documentary The Secret of The Wild Child stated: “While Victor knew how to read simple words, he never learned how to talk” (Garmon, 1994). This quote implicates that similar to Genie, Victor developed a vocabulary,
In this part, the writer will point out the importance of the biological and neural foundation of language learning by discussing the following :First, the brain anatomy. Second, l...
Still today, it is the commonly held belief that children acquire their mother tongue through imitation of the parents, caregivers or the people in their environment. Linguists too had the same conviction until 1957, when a then relatively unknown man, A. Noam Chomsky, propounded his theory that the capacity to acquire language is in fact innate. This revolutionized the study of language acquisition, and after a brief period of controversy upon the publication of his book, Aspects of the Theory of Syntax, in 1964, his theories are now generally accepted as largely true. As a consequence, he was responsible for the emergence of a new field during the 1960s, Developmental Psycholinguistics, which deals with children’s first language acquisition. He was not the first to question our hitherto mute acceptance of a debatable concept – long before, Plato wondered how children could possibly acquire so complex a skill as language with so little experience of life. Experiments have clearly identified an ability to discern syntactical nuances in very young infants, although they are still at the pre-linguistic stage. Children of three, however, are able to manipulate very complicated syntactical sentences, although they are unable to tie their own shoelaces, for example. Indeed, language is not a skill such as many others, like learning to drive or perform mathematical operations – it cannot be taught as such in these early stages. Rather, it is the acquisition of language which fascinates linguists today, and how it is possible. Noam Chomsky turned the world’s eyes to this enigmatic question at a time when it was assumed to have a deceptively simple explanation.
Nearly every member of the human race learns a language or more to the degree of proficiency only in the first few years of life. How children achieve this astonishing skill in such little time has sparked controversial debates among linguists, psychologists, and scientists throughout centuries. Some believe that language is an innate ability possessed by all human beings due to the remarkable function of the brain, while others maintain that language is learned from childhood experience. However, many are beginning to realize that nature and nurture go hand-in-hand when explaining how children develop their language(s). Despite the claims that language is either pre-learned or environmentally learned alone, the combination of both genes and experience better explains the aspects of first language acquisition.
Language has pioneered many interracial relationships and historical milestones. Language is a necessity for basic communication and cultural diversity. Being multilingual is a skill proven influential to a successful future. Due to rapid globalization, countries all over the world are stressing the importance of learning a second, or even third, language. With the exception of time and lack of resources, adults have very few widely applicable disadvantages to learning multiple languages. However, language learning as a child presents more complications. Some of those include not having enough funding at the elementary school level to introduce a program for secondary language, academic overload for the youth, stress for both the parent and student parties, and the mixing of languages. Not all of these complications are true in any or all situations, however, and the absence of them provides multitudes of opportunity for future career and academic success. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the parents or the education legislation to decide whether they encourage the learning of a secondary language at the young age necessary for retention. “The general consensus is that it takes between five to seven years for an individual to achieve advanced fluency,” therefore the younger a child begins to learn, the more likely they are to benefit to the maximum potential (Robertson). Keeping the language learning in high school or beginning the process earlier is a greatly controversial discussion that is important to address because of the topic’s already lengthy suspension.
Language acquisition requires meaningful interaction in the target language with natural communication while children are acquiring the foreign language. Children usually concerned with message which they are conveying and understand not with the form of utterances. These utterances are initiated by the acquired systems and the fluency of language is based on what we have ‘picked up’ through active communication. Both formal knowledge and conscious learning of the second language learning may be alternate to the output of the system, sometimes before and sometimes after the