Reviewing First and Second Language

Acquisition:
A Comparison between Young and Adult Learners
Hiromi Hadley
Niigata Studies in Foreign Languages and Cultures,
No. 8: 37-48 (December 2002).

1. Introduction
As an English language teacher in Japan, I am often asked by language learners or their
parents if there is a way to acquire English just as they acquired Japanese so
effortlessly and well when they were little. Especially the parents of young children
genuinely hope to give them a head start on their learning, because the parents
themselves experienced the helpless feeling of failing to acquire what is now a de facto
international language. They seem to know instinctively that the traditional language
education they received was not very effective. After so much time and effort spent in
class, they found themselves unable to carry out a simple everyday conversation with a
native speaker of English.
In order to adequately provide an educated answer to this heartfelt question, this paper
will attempt to shed light on some of the important differences in learning a first
language and learning a language in the classroom. Of particular interest will be the
issue of language input as an external factor and the learners age as an internal factor.
I will then discuss their implications for English language learning in the classrooms in
Japan. It is hoped that these findings will encourage second language learners and
parents, as well as practicing teachers, to reflect upon their own learning and teaching
strategies.

2. Variables in Comparison and Contrast

Before weighing the differences between learning an L1 and learning an L2 in the
classroom, however, there is at least another variable that needs to be addressed.
Considering the cognitive and affective differences between children and adults (Brown,
1994: 51), it is simpler to compare young children learning an L1 and young children
learning an L2 in the classroom. Nevertheless, this paper will attempt to undertake the
comparison of children learning an L1 and adults learning an L2 in classroom settings, in
order to relate to the current situation here in Japan where most people start receiving
their formal English language education in junior high school. Although it is debatable as
to where one may draw the line between childhood and adulthood, it is generally agreed
that the distinction should reasonably be made before and after puberty (Brown, 1994:
51). Based on the above premise, the two types of learning will be compared and
contrasted by referring to literature on first and second language acquisitions, and my
own learning, teaching, and interactional experiences as a student, teacher of the
English language, and spouse of a native speaker of English.

3. Input as an External Factor

One of the noticeable differences in learning an L1 in a natural setting and learning an
L2 in the
classroom seems to be the quantity and quality of the target language input the learner
receives in
her learning environment. Let us first consider the more obvious one of the two; the
quantitative
aspect of the learner input.

3.1 Quantity of the Learner Input

Babies and young children typically receive a vast amount of language of various kinds
day after
day, whereas, in comparison, the amount of language input is quite limited in the
language
classroom except in an immersion class. This distinction is even more marked in an EFL
environment such as Japan, where a typical class meets for 50 minutes, three to five
times a week
in junior and senior high schools, and for 90 minutes, once a week at universities.
Moreover, within
these limited class hours of traditional, teacher-fronted classrooms, the Japanese
language is
frequently used to conduct the lesson.

3.1.1 Connectionism
The connectionist approach to learning has seen a remarkable advancement with the
development
of computer technology, and recently been applied to L2 learning. It argues that the
human brain
functions like a computer. The brain unconsciously analyzes incoming data and makes
connections
between them. These data connections become strengthened as the associations keep
recurring.
As the number of connections increases, the brain makes generalizations from the input,
and
creates larger neural networks (Mitchell and Myles, 1998: 79).
In terms of language learning, according to this model, what the language learner needs
to know is
available in the language he is exposed to. Thus, language input is the principal source
of linguistic
knowledge. When the brain hears recurring language items in a specific context, it
searches for
associations between the elements, and create connections between them. These
connections
become stronger as the learner comes in frequent contact with the language items in the
same
context. On the other hand, the connections weaken when the input is infrequent
(Lightbown and
Spada, 1999: 22 and 42).

Connectionism, however, has its share of criticism. It is accused of being purely

environmentalistic,
in that it does not consider innate faculty nor cognitive processing for language
acquisition, and that
it might imply a return to behaviourist stimulus-response practice (Larsen-Freeman and
Long,
1991: 250-251). In addition, since connectionist research on second language
acquisition has so
far dealt only with simple morphemes in highly controlled laboratories, it may be
premature at this
point to decide from these experiments what might be understood about the process of
learning
natural languages in the real world (Mitchell and Myles, 1998: 84).
3.1.2 Implications of Connectionism
Although it is still unclear how far the findings can apply to the complexities of natural
language
learning situations, connectionism may at least explain the acquisition of basic
vocabulary and
grammatical items in the target language (Lightbown and Spada, 1999: 26 and 42). If
the language
learning process depends on the input frequency and regularity, as the connectionist
model implies,
L1 learners have a greater advantage over L2 learners. By constantly receiving a vast
amount of
language input in a specific, recurring and meaningful situational context, children are
likely to daily
develop stronger neurological connections. Connectionism might also explain part of the
reasons
why most Japanese learners of English often fail to maintain a short conversation with a
native
speaker even after years of the formal language learning. It is possible that their
neurological
networks have not sufficiently developed because of the sporadic input they receive in
their
classrooms.
Connectionism seems to clarify the importance of the amount of the language input that
the learner
receives, but it also highlights the significance of input quality in terms of frequency and
regularity.
What other qualities of the input, then, are observed in childrens acquisition of their L1?
How
different are they from the input that adult L2 learners typically receive in the classroom?

3.2 Quality of the Learner Input

The need for controlled input was also advocated by Krashen as comprehensible input,
albeit from

a different perspective. He asserts that the learner acquires the target language when
the input
she receives is slightly beyond her current level of competence; i +1 (Krashen, 1987: 2021). One
of the many controversial aspects of this hypothesis is that the +1 cannot be clearly
defined, which
makes it difficult to substantiate the hypothesis by research (Brown, 1994: 282, and
Lightbown and
Spada, 1999: 39). Most researchers, however, agree that comprehensible input is one
of the
necessary conditions for language acquisition (Cummins, 1988: 157, and LarsenFreeman and
Long, 1991: 142), although extensive input alone may not provide learners with enough
information
about what is not possible in the target language (Lightbown and Spada, 1999: 132).

places emphasis on learner interaction. Through the negotiation of meaning, he argues,

the input
is further modified adequately for the level of the learner. Another perspective on the
role of
interaction in language learning has been drawn from Vygotskys (1978, cited in Ellis,
1997: 48)
zone of proximal development theory. He maintains that children solve problems with
the guidance
of caretakers, who provide scaffolding; children then internalize these solutions.
3.2.1 Child-Directed Speech vs. Teacher Talk
In general, young L1 learners and adult L2 learners in the classroom are both provided
with the
input adjusted to their levels of comprehension. Child-directed speech and teacher talk
share
similar traits which involve a slower rate of speech, basic vocabulary, shorter and
simpler
sentences, repetition, and restating (Lightbown and Spada, 1999: 24, 34 and 177). What
then
seems to be the difference between child-directed speech and teacher talk?
3.2.2 Meaningful Input
In child-directed speech, the topic first comes from the childs immediate here and now
surroundings (Krashen, 1987:23). Later on it can include things the child did (Lightbown
and
Spada, 1999: 24). These egocentric topics enable the child to associate the language
with the
specific context at hand. Emerging from the child herself and her environment, they are
naturally
important and interesting to her, and make the association easily transferable to other
similar

recurring situations. On the other hand, in a language classroom, it is quite difficult for
the teacher
to always come up with something so interesting or so relevant that every student wants
to find out
more about it (Macnamara, 1975: 88). In a traditional Japanese EFL classroom, it has
been my
experience that the topic is seldom generated by the students themselves. When the
given topic is
so far removed from their own cultural experiences, even those cognitively matured
adult learners
could face difficulty in comprehending the meaning at the onset.
3.2.3 Differences in Additional Input Provided through Interaction
In an L1 learning situation, the childs response to modified speech triggers additional,
even better
adjusted input from the caretaker through intimate, supportive, personal interaction. The
child
supplies content words, and the caretaker empathetically constructs them into a
sentence with the
grammatical items missing in the childs utterance, and also expands the original
sentence into a
situationally meaningful form for the child (Cook, 1969: 213-214).
In the case of such cultures as Western Samoa and Guatemala, where caretakers do
not use
modified speech, children still receive not only modifications of interactional structure
(Long, 1980,
cited in Larsen-Freeman and Long, 1991: 142) of conversation, which may include
repetitions,
clarification requests, comprehension checks, expansions, from their caretaker (LarsenFreeman

The Critical Period Hypothesis

The notion of a critical period was first brought to the field of L1 acquisition from biology
(Genesee,1988: 97). In order to account for the hypothesis, Penfield and Roberts (1959,
cited in Genesee,
1988: 98) placed emphasis on neural plasticity, which is the capacity of a young childs
brain to flexibly transfer a function from one area to another (Scovel, 1988: 128 and
Larsen-Freeman and Long, 1991: 164). Lenneberg (1967, cited in Genesee, 1988: 98)
then developed this concept by suggesting the lateralization of brain functions. Applied
to L2 acquisition, this hypothesis states
that L2 competence becomes increasingly difficult to achieve some time around or after
puberty (Brown, 1994: 52-53). The research findings, however, have not yet been
conclusive: Long

(1990), for instance, presents a number of findings in support of this hypothesis not only
in phonology but also in morphology and syntax. These findings are also supported by
Skehan
(1998: 222-235). However, Genesee (1988: 100-103) provides contradictory findings
from studies such as in one case where older learners achieved higher levels of L2
proficiency than younger learners, at least in the initial stage of their learning.
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.