ACADEMIC YEAR 2013-2014
YEAR ONE: INTRODUCTION TO LANGUAGE LEARNING AND TEACHING
#3: COMPARING AND CONTRASTING FIRST LANGUAGE ACQUISITION,
NATURALISTIC SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
AND INSTRUCTED FOREIGN LANGUAGE LEARNING
(extracted in part from: Majer, J. 2010a.  First language acquisition . In Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, B.
(Ed.), New Ways to Language. A
ódz
: A
ódz
University Press. 317-334. Majer, J. 2010b.  Second language
acquisition and foreign language learning . In Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, B. (Ed.), New Ways to Language.
A
ódz
: A
ódz
University Press. 352-375).
1. The instructional potential of Caregiver Talk
Traditionally, linguistic input was perceived as merely a trigger for selecting among innately specified
options. However, recent research has demonstrated that infant-directed speech plays a far more important
role. This universal simplified register used by caregivers around the world when they address babies, called
CAREGIVER TALK (but also "baby talk", "mother talk", "motherese", "parentese", "caretaker speech", etc.; cf.
Handout #2), is generally acknowledged to help infants to acquire language. It has also been shown that they
prefer this simplified code over adult-directed speech. Initially, for example, the exaggerated stress and
intonation contours, as well as increased pitch, typical of caregiver talk assists infants in discriminating
phonetic units. Compare also the table below:
PURPOSE OF USE
·ð to provide affection, socialize the child and direct its behaviour
FUNCTION
·ð communication, socialization and affective feedback
PHONOLOGICAL AND PROSODIC
·ð various segmental changes (e.g. simplification of consonantal clusters)
ADJUSTMENTS
·ð pitch contours (both height and range)
·ð focus marking
·ð junctural and hesitation pauses
SYNTACTIC AND MORPHOLOGICAL
·ð less subordination (fewer embedded clauses)
ADJUSTMENTS
·ð a limited range of grammatical relations (avoidance of 1st and 2nd person
pronouns)
·ð display questions
·ð more imperatives
·ð diminutives
GRAMMATICALITY
·ð rarely ungrammatical (e.g. omission of articles and possessives; PRO-drop)
SEMANTIC ADJUSTMENTS
·ð onomatopoeia
·ð concrete lexicon; orientation to "here-and-now" (wh-deixis)
·ð unique lexicon
DISCOURSAL, INTERACTIONAL
·ð may assimilate some of the non-verbal patterns developed by the child
AND NON-VERBAL ADJUSTMENTS
CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK
·ð caretakers are far more responsive to the truth value or social behavior
than to "errors"
Table 1: Parameters of caregiver talk as a simplified register of language use
(adapted from Majer 2003: 169-170)
Linguistic forms and meanings provided in caregiver talk are introduced in a principled way, so that the
child s input is organised. Despite its special phonological characteristics, the simplified register in question
tends to be both fluent and redundant. The mean length of utterance is closely related to the child s rate of
psycholinguistic development.
1
2. From L1 acquisition to L2 learning: Terminological problems
It would seem as though it is easy to define a notion such as  L1 . To be sure, to many individuals the term
 the first language simply means their  mother tongue or  the language acquired first in the case of
sequential acquisition of at least two systems. But in multilingual communities L1 may refer to the language
that an individual feels most comfortable with.
Once we have established  L1 as a point of reference, it should not be too difficult to define the concept
of  L2 . In general terms, this is a language that is  not one s L1 or  not one s native language . But if we
combine L1 and L2 as stages in a life-long process of language acquisition, we can talk of EARLY
BILINGUALISM, i.e. the acquisition of L1 and L2 in early childhood, as opposed to LATE BILINGUALISM, i.e.
adding a L2 to the already established competence in L1 in late childhood, adolescence or even adulthood, for
instance via education.
Specifying whether reference is made to naturalistic or educational contexts will be useful. In this
respect, the kind of L2 used alongside L1 in a bilingual or multilingual community is usually termed a
SECOND LANGUAGE, whereas the kind of L2 studied formally as a school subject is commonly referred to as
a FOREIGN LANGUAGE. However, the division is by no means rigid and the terms  second and  foreign are
often used interchangeably. For this reason, SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION (SLA) and FOREIGN
LANGUAGE LEARNING (FLL) should not be treated as mutually exclusive processes.
Whatever the contextual parameters, both SLA and FLL can be generally defined as a process by which
an individual develops competence in another linguistic system, passing through a series of interlanguages.
The notion of INTERLANGUAGE is best defined as a transitional competence, i.e. a language system created
and produced by learners in the process of acquiring L2, and characterized by features such as transfer (or
borrowing) from L1, overgeneralization of L2 rules, and use of learning and communication strategies.
Regardless of the context in which an interlanguage competence is formed, learners will differ among one
another in terms of success or failure of L2 acquisition. The factors most responsible for the diversity in learner
achievement are known as INDIVIDUAL LEARNER DIFFERENCES and they can be subcategorized as: (i)
biological (e.g. age); (ii) cognitive (e.g. aptitude); and (iii) socioaffective (e.g. motivation).
3. Comparing second language acquisition and foreign language learning
Comparison is often invited between different acquisitional and learning contexts: informal naturalistic vs.
formal educational, young learners vs. adults, etc. Let us take, for example, L2 acquisition in early childhood
and SLA or FLL in the later years. Why is the latter process almost never as successful as the former? A rather
obvious answer to this question simply follows from the mere quantitative analysis of the two acquisitional
contexts. Thus, by age 4-5 a bilingual child will have experienced ca. 10,000 hours of communicative practice
in L1 and L2. If we compare this data with the even most linguistically ambitious educational programme, such
as IMMERSION, where by age 17-18 an adolescent learner will have received ca. 3,000-4,000 hours of content
instruction in L2, we are still talking about roughly one-third to two-fifths of the previous figure. And the
proportion is even less favourable towards an average adolescent learner enrolled in a regular school course,
who by the same age will have done only about 600 hours of foreign language study.
Significant differences can also be found when we compare the environmental and educational parameters
of SLA and FLL. Thus, typical contexts for naturalistic L2 learners are informal settings, whereas tutored
learners study the L2 system in formal settings. But even among instructed SLA students there can be striking
differences as regards the environmental factors. While some learners may become participants of elite
immersion programmes, where nearly all content-area instruction is carried out in L2, immigrant children
simply receive SUBMERSION in L2, i.e. having to study content and language at the same time, together with
native-speakers. Instructed FLL, on the other hand, typically consists in the study of L2 as just another school
subject.
2
A further differentiation between types of learners and the conditions of study can be derived from
psycholinguistic aspects of SLA and FLL. For example, younger naturalistic learners typically undergo
subconscious acquisition or instinctive learning ( picking up L2; in extreme cases,  street learning), while for
tutored pupils L2 study is often conscious learning (the effect of formal instruction). Furthermore, untutored
learners may receive ROUGH-TUNED INPUT (i.e. language data without any simplifications, adaptations or
modifications), whereas in most language classrooms learners receive FINE-TUNED INPUT (i.e. language that is
simplified, modified and adjusted to the current level of their proficiency in L2). Besides, immigrants in non-
instructional settings may receive input via FOREIGNER TALK and/or caregiver talk, depending on the age
variable. For instructed FL learners, in contrast, input is typically available in the form of TEACHER TALK and
PEER TALK (i.e. input coming from other learners in the classroom). Finally, uninstructed learners can approach
the task of building the grammatical system of L2 through data gathering and inferencing, whereas tutored
learners in FL classrooms are often participants of guided INDUCTIVE and DEDUCTIVE GRAMMAR LEARNING.
There are also considerable differences in the ways SLA and FLL take place as processes responsive to
language pedagogy. Some of the methodological issues are summarized below:
·ð Whereas naturalistic learners are primarily focused on communication, instructed FL learners are often
made to pay attention to form.
·ð Consequently, in SLA environments emphasis is placed on fluency and free practice, while FL learning
settings value accuracy and controlled practice, particularly in view of assessment and examinations.
·ð Moreover, untutored acquirers may delay production, i.e. choose the moment when they feel ready to
produce output in L2. In other words, they may go through a  silent period (like L1 acquirers). This is
hardly ever available in the conditions of FL classroom learning, where instantaneous practice is
expected from the very beginning of instruction.
Similarly, instructional and non-instructional contexts will offer different OUTPUT opportunities. Thus,
interaction in naturalistic, non-educational L2 environments is typically authentic or quasi-authentic, while
classroom interactions in institutionalized settings are at best group- or pair-work activities, though more
typically teacher-student dyads with the triadic IRF tutorial cycle (Teacher Initiation + Learner Response +
Teacher Follow-up), e.g.
T: What time is it, Denise?
L: Two o clock.
T: Good.
Furthermore, communication in the language classroom may sometimes become trivialized (e.g. Is the
blackboard on the ceiling? Are you sitting or standing? Am I a teacher? Is Mary a girl?). Besides, learners in
non-institutionalized L2 contexts are rarely corrected; instead, they get a chance to negotiate meaning in
interactions with native-speakers, who may repair discourse if there is trouble in jointly produced
communication. In contrast, instructed learners often receive CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK (i.e. error correction).
Finally, let us also examine cultural and socioaffective factors behind the contextual differences between
SLA and FLL. Part of the fluency of naturalistic learners may derive from their expert manipulation of
formulaic language and social routines, for which they have authentic situational contexts and immediate
feedback from their interlocutors. FL learners, in contrast, get model examples of spontaneous speech from
textbook dialogues (listening passages), which, however, cannot be considered fully authentic. Generally,
textbook realities of typical FL classroom materials cannot compare with the authentic cultural contexts of
most naturalistic SLA environments. Besides, immigrant learners in non-institutionalized settings can be
integratively motivated, whereas most students learning the target language in their home countries are
instrumentally motivated. On the other hand, immigrants may feel that there is social and psychological
distance between their native language and culture and the target language/culture, which is not usually the
concern of tutored FL learners, whose positive or negative attitudes and orientations towards L2 and its culture
will not be directly dependent on their immediate social or economic situation.
3
OTHER REFERENCES AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY
Cunningham, U. 2011. Growing Up with Two Languages. Third Edition. London: Routledge.
Edwards, J. 2010. Language Diversity in the Classroom. Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. Bristol: Multilingual
Matters.
Gass, S. M. & Selinker, L. 2008. Second Language Acquisition. An Introductory Course. Third Edition. Oxford:
Routledge.
Goodluck, H. 2011.  First language acquisition . WIREs Cogn Sci 2: 47 54.
Majer, J. 2003. Interactive Discourse in the Foreign Language Classroom. A
ódz
: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu
A
ódzkiego.
Oliver, R. 2000.  Age differences in negotiation and feedback in classroom and pairwork . Language Learning 50/1:
119-151.
Pinker S. 1996.  Language acquisition . In: Gleitman, L. & Liberman, M, (Eds.), An Invitation to Cognitive Science,
Language, Vol. 1. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 135 182.
Saville-Troike, M. 2006. Introducing Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wells, G. 1986. The Meaning Makers: Children Learning Language and Using Language to Learn. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Wells, G. 1999.  Using L1 to master L2: A response to Antón and DiCamilla's 'Socio-cognitive functions of L1
collaborative interaction in the L2 classroom' . The Modern Language Journal 83/2: 248-254.
Yip, V. & Matthews, S. 2007. The Bilingual Child. Early Development and Language Contact. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
4