scholarly journals When timing is everything: Age of first-language acquisition effects on second-language learning

2007 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 537-549 ◽  
Author(s):  
RACHEL I. MAYBERRY
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Language Learning ◽  
First Language ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Linguistic Structure ◽  
Specific Effects ◽  
Sensory Motor ◽  
L1 Acquisition ◽  
L1 And L2 ◽  
Motor Modality

The present paper summarizes three experiments that investigate the effects of age of acquisition on first-language (L1) acquisition in relation to second-language (L2) outcome. The experiments use the unique acquisition situations of childhood deafness and sign language. The key factors controlled across the studies are age of L1 acquisition, the sensory–motor modality of the language, and level of linguistic structure. Findings consistent across the studies show age of L1 acquisition to be a determining factor in the success of both L1 and L2 acquisition. Sensory–motor modality shows no general or specific effects. It is of importance that the effects of age of L1 acquisition on both L1 and L2 outcome are apparent across levels of linguistic structure, namely, syntax, phonology, and the lexicon. The results demonstrate that L1 acquisition bestows not only facility with the linguistic structure of the L1, but also the ability to learn linguistic structure in the L2.

First language acquisition... second language acquisition: ‘What’s Hecuba to him or he to Hecuba?’

2001 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 329-344
Author(s):  
Susan Foster-Cohen
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Second Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Research Question ◽  
First Language ◽  
Language Learner ◽  
First Language Acquisition ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
L1 Acquisition ◽  
L1 And L2

Second language (L2) research appeals to first language acquisition research frequently and standardly. It is important, however, to take stock from time to time of the uses that second language acquisition (SLA) makes of its sister field. Whether we use first language (L1) research to generate or bolster the importance of a particular research question, to argue for a fundamental similarity or a fundamental difference between the two sorts of acquisition, or to offer guidance in the formulation of research paradigms, it is important that we do so with our critical eyes open.This article examines the possible and specific relationships between L1 acquisition and SLA, with the aim of showing that a number of assumptions warrant closer inspection. It begins by examining the expressions ‘first language acquisition’ and ‘second language acquisition’, suggesting that the syntactic and lexical parallelism between the two masks important issues internal to the fields involved. It then explores problems in distinguishing L1 from L2 acquisition from three different perspectives: individual language learner histories, the data, and the mechanisms proposed to account for the two types of acquisition. Finally, it takes a brief look at the sociology of L1 and L2 studies, and suggests that second language study has yet to assume fully its rightful place in the academy.

scholarly journals Dynamic Transfer and Relations between First Language (L1) Proficiency and Second Language (L2) Writing Skills Performance

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Abdulelah Alkhateeb
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Language Learning ◽  
English Language ◽  
First Language ◽  
Writing Skills ◽  
Arabic Language ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Dynamic Relationship ◽  
Arabic And English ◽  
L1 And L2

This study investigates the transfer relationship between first language (L1) (Arabic) proficiency and second language (L2) (English) performance in writing skills of a Saudi bilingual graduate student. Several studies have discussed the transfer issues in language learning, yet a few of them focus on the transfer relationships between Arabic and English language writing skills. Regardless of the huge linguistic distinction between the English language and Arabic language, it is presumed that Arabic and English writing skills positively, negatively, and neutrally transferred in a dynamic relationship. The researcher has conducted observations and interviews with Fatimah, the participant of this study, and analyzed her texts in both languages to illustrate how dynamic relationships between L1 and L2 in the composition skills is and what the effects of language transfer in the composition skills between L1 and L2 are. The data were collected and analyzed in January 2018. The results demonstrate effects of L2 on L1 as the following; first, a reverse or backward transfer implemented in three ways; positive, negative, and neutral transfer. Second, they indicate that there is a dynamic relationship between second language performance and first language proficiency in composition particularly. It is hoped that this knowledge will assist students in being aware of the effects of L2 on L1 specifically in composition and taking the advantages to accelerate the rate of language learning. It is recommended for future research to conduct studies in bilingual writings to investigate how L1 could be a resource and advocate of language development.

scholarly journals Understanding individual variation in levels of second language attainment through the lens of critical period mechanisms

2018 ◽  
Vol 21 (5) ◽  
pp. 930-931 ◽  
Author(s):  
REBECCA REH ◽  
MARIA ARREDONDO ◽  
JANET F. WERKER
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Category Learning ◽  
Critical Period ◽  
First Language ◽  
Visual Language ◽  
Phonetic Category ◽  
Critical Periods ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Language Discrimination ◽  
L1 Acquisition

Mayberry and Kluender (2017) present an important and compelling argument that in order to understand critical periods (CPs) in language acquisition, it is essential to disentangle studies of late first language (L1) acquisition from those of second language (L2) acquisition. Their primary thesis is that timely exposure to an L1 is crucial for establishing language circuitry, thus providing a foundation on which an L2 can build. They note that while there is considerable evidence of interference from the L1 on acquisition of the L2 – especially in late L2 learners (as in our work on cascading influences on phonetic category learning and visual language discrimination, e.g., Werker & Hensch, 2015 and Weikum, Vouloumanos, Navarra, Soto-Faraco, Sebastián-Gallés & Werker, 2013, respectively) – there are other examples of ways in which the L1 can scaffold L2 acquisition. Mayberry and Kluender take this evidence of L1 scaffolding L2 as undermining the value of considering CPs as useful in understanding L2 acquisition.

The storage and composition of inflected forms in adult-learned second language: A study of the influence of length of residence, age of arrival, sex, and other factors

2012 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. 820-840 ◽  
Author(s):  
LAURA BABCOCK ◽  
JOHN C. STOWE ◽  
CHRISTOPHER J. MALOOF ◽  
CLAUDIA BROVETTO ◽  
MICHAEL T. ULLMAN
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
First Language ◽  
English Speakers ◽  
Past Tense ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Length Of Residence ◽  
Frequency Effects ◽  
Irregular Verbs ◽  
Past Tenses ◽  
L1 And L2

It remains unclear whether adult-learned second language (L2) depends on similar or different neurocognitive mechanisms as those involved in first language (L1). We examined whether English past tense forms are computed similarly or differently by L1 and L2 English speakers, and what factors might affect this: regularity (regular vs. irregular verbs), length of L2 exposure (length of residence), age of L2 acquisition (age of arrival), L2 learners’ native language (Chinese vs. Spanish), and sex (male vs. female). Past tense frequency effects were used to examine the type of computation (composition vs. storage/retrieval). The results suggest that irregular past tenses are always stored. Regular past tenses, however, are either composed or stored, as a function of various factors: both sexes store regulars in L2, but only females in L1; greater lengths of residence lead to less dependence on storage, but only in females; higher adult ages of arrival lead to more reliance on storage. The findings suggest that inflected forms can rely on either the same or different mechanisms in L2 as they do in L1, and that this varies as a function of multiple interacting factors.

scholarly journals How adult second language learning differs from child first language development

1996 ◽  
Vol 19 (4) ◽  
pp. 721-723 ◽  
Author(s):  
Harald Clahsen ◽  
Pieter Muysken
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Language Development ◽  
Language Learning ◽  
Second Language Learning ◽  
First Language ◽  
Alternative View ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Target Article ◽  
Theoretical Developments

AbstractWe argue that the model developed in Epstein et al.'s target article does not explain differences between child first language (LI) acquisition and adult second language (L2) acquisition. We therefore sketch an alternative view, originally developed in Clahsen and Muysken (1989), in the light of new empirical findings and theoretical developments.

Child second language acquisition from a generative perspective

2013 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 26-47 ◽  
Author(s):  
Belma Haznedar
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Second Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Acquisition ◽  
First Language ◽  
Morphological Variability ◽  
Current Work ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Functional Architecture ◽  
L1 Influence ◽  
L1 Acquisition

This chapter reviews current work on child second language acquisition from a generative perspective. The primary goal is to identify characteristics of child L2 acquisition in relation to child first language (L1) acquisition and adult second language (L2) acquisition and to discuss its contribution to these sister fields both in typical and atypical domains. The chapter is organized into three sections, covering L1 influence in child L2 acquisition, the acquisition of functional architecture in child L2 acquisition, and the issue of morphological variability. Also included in the last section are the relatively new and fast developing areas of research in atypical child L2 acquisition research.

scholarly journals Investigating the acquisition of the Split-IP parameter and the V2 parameter in second language Afrikaans

2006 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 64-94 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simone Conradie
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
English Learners ◽  
Universal Grammar ◽  
First Language ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
L2 Learners ◽  
English Speaking ◽  
Parameter Resetting ◽  
L1 And L2 ◽  
Parameter Values

Researchers who assume that Universal Grammar (UG) plays a role in second language (L2) acquisition are still debating whether L2 learners have access to UG in its entirety (the Full Access hypothesis; e.g. Schwartz and Sprouse, 1994; 1996; White, 1989; 2003) or only to those aspects of UG that are instantiated in their first language (L1) grammar (the No Parameter Resetting hypothesis; e.g. Hawkins and Chan, 1997). The Full Access hypothesis predicts that parameter resetting will be possible where the L1 and L2 differ in parameter values, whereas the No Parameter Resetting hypothesis predicts that parameter resetting will not be possible. These hypotheses are tested in a study examining whether English-speaking learners of Afrikaans can reset the Split-IP parameter (SIP) (Thráinsson, 1996) and the V2 parameter from their L1 ([-SIP], [-V2]) to their L2 ([+SIP], [+V2]) values. 15 advanced English learners of Afrikaans and 10 native speakers of Afrikaans completed three tasks: a sentence manipulation task, a grammaticality judgement task and a truth-value judgement task. Results suggest that the interlanguage grammars of the L2 learners are [+SIP] and [+V2] (unlike the L1), providing evidence for the Full Access hypothesis.

When-questions in second language acquisition

2000 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 44-76 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hyeson Park
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Second Language Acquisition ◽  
Reading First ◽  
First Language ◽  
Cognitive Factors ◽  
Developmental Sequence ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Wh Questions ◽  
English Speaking ◽  
L1 Acquisition

It has been observed that when-questions are one of the last wh-questions produced by children learning English either as a first language (L1) or as a second language (L2). Explanations proposed for the late appearance of when-questions in L1 acquisition have been mostly based on cognitive factors. However, the cognition-based approach to when-questions faces problems in explaining L2 acquisition data, which show that L2 children who are cognitively more mature than L1 children follow the same developmental sequence. In this paper, I propose a possible explanation based on internal linguistic factors. According to Enç (1987), tense is a referential expression and temporal adverbials are antecedents of tense. I develop Enç's theory further and propose that in a when-question, tense is a bound variable, which is bound by the quantificational interrogative when. Thus, in order to produce when-questions, children must be at a stage where they understand bound variable readings. According to Roeper and de Villiers (1991), English-speaking children learn a bound variable reading approximately after 36 months, and the learning continues through the kindergarten years. The age at which a bound variable reading first appears corresponds to the point at which when-questions begin to occur. I propose that the complexity of the interaction between the quantificational when and tense, a bound variable, causes the delayed production of when-questions in developing grammars.

scholarly journals First Language Bidialectism and Associative Learning in Second Language Acquisition

2015 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 65 ◽  
Author(s):  
Weifeng Han
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Second Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Learning ◽  
Associative Learning ◽  
First Language ◽  
Grammatical Structure ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Syntactic Awareness ◽  
L2 Learning

<em>The faculty of grammar has long been known to be critical to language acquisition, but recent studies have called into question whether innate capacities included only knowledge of grammatical structure. This paper reports research on language-learning impaired children’s language acquisition and first language (L1) bidialectal children learning a second language. It proposes that learners will benefit from their L1 bidialectal knowledge in second language (L2) learning, since L1 bidialectals exhibit better syntactic awareness of L2 specific structures. It further argues that mechanism of association, rather than rule computation, plays a more important role in L2 acquisition.</em>

Transfer effects in learning a second language grammatical gender system

2006 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-29 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura Sabourin ◽  
Laurie A. Stowe ◽  
Ger J. de Haan
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Native Speakers ◽  
First Language ◽  
Grammatical Gender ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Gender Assignment ◽  
Similar System ◽  
Gender System ◽  
L1 And L2

In this article second language (L2) knowledge of Dutch grammatical gender is investigated. Adult speakers of German, English and a Romance language (French, Italian or Spanish) were investigated to explore the role of transfer in learning the Dutch grammatical gender system. In the first language (L1) systems, German is the most similar to Dutch coming from a historically similar system. The Romance languages have grammatical gender; however, the system is not congruent to the Dutch system. English does not have grammatical gender (although semantic gender is marked in the pronoun system). Experiment 1, a simple gender assignment task, showed that all L2 participants tested could assign the correct gender to Dutch nouns (all L2 groups performing on average above 80%), although having gender in the L1 did correlate with higher accuracy, particularly when the gender systems were very similar. Effects of noun familiarity and a default gender strategy were found for all participants. In Experiment 2 agreement between the noun and the relative pronoun was investigated. In this task a distinct performance hierarchy was found with the German group performing the best (though significantly worse than native speakers), the Romance group performing well above chance (though not as well as the German group), and the English group performing at chance. These results show that L2 acquisition of grammatical gender is affected more by the morphological similarity of gender marking in the L1 and L2 than by the presence of abstract syntactic gender features in the L1.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document