L1 Acquisition and L2 Learning

2021 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
L2 Learning ◽  
L1 Acquisition

Language acquisition without Universal Grammar: a general nativist proposal for L2 learning

1996 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 374-397 ◽  
Author(s):  
William O'Grady
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Second Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Universal Grammar ◽  
L2 Learning ◽  
Acquisition Device ◽  
L1 Acquisition

This article explores the prospects for a 'general nativist' theory of first and second language acquisition. A modular acquisition device that does not include Universal Grammar (UG) is outlined and its role in the emergence of an L1 is considered. The relevance of this proposal for a theory of SLA is then explored, leading to the suggestion that the properties and outcome typical of postadolescent L2 learning can be traced to the fact that adults have only partial access to the L1 acquisition device.

scholarly journals Variation in late L1 acquisition?

2018 ◽  
Vol 21 (5) ◽  
pp. 917-918 ◽  
Author(s):  
KAREN EMMOREY
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Critical Period ◽  
Age Of Acquisition ◽  
L2 Proficiency ◽  
Language Aptitude ◽  
L2 Learning ◽  
L1 Acquisition

Mayberry and Kluender review evidence that second language (L2) proficiency declines with age of acquisition (regardless of modality), but they also review evidence for variable L2 outcomes for individuals, with factors such as motivation, language aptitude, education, and L2 experience playing a role. They argue that if L2 outcomes were fully under the control of a critical period for language (CPL), these learning variables should not predict L2 outcome, and the outcome of L2 learning would not be consistently observed to be so variable. The questions raised in this commentary are whether there is variation in late L1 proficiency and whether such variation could provide insights into the CPL.

scholarly journals Is there a critical period for L1 but not L2?

2018 ◽  
Vol 21 (5) ◽  
pp. 928-929 ◽  
Author(s):  
ELISSA L. NEWPORT
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Strong Evidence ◽  
Critical Period ◽  
Sensitive Period ◽  
Important Work ◽  
Important Data ◽  
Second Languages ◽  
L2 Learning ◽  
L1 Acquisition ◽  
L1 And L2

I am very pleased to comment on this important and thought-provoking keynote article. The evidence reviewed by Mayberry and Kluender (Mayberry & Kluender, 2017) is extremely significant for our understanding of a critical or sensitive period for the acquisition of language, and the hypothesis they suggest regarding a critical period for first but not second language is challenging. The studies of late L1 learning from the Mayberry lab provide very strong evidence for a critical or sensitive period. However, I am less persuaded of their interpretation of L2 learning and the contrast they hypothesize between L1 and L2 learning during adulthood. I will suggest another hypothesis regarding the differences in age effects for first versus second languages, one that is equally compatible with their important data. My focus here is therefore on their interpretation of the L2 literature. I will not comment further on their review of Mayberry's remarkable studies of late L1 acquisition, except to congratulate them on this very important work.

A CASE STUDY OF NL INFLUENCE IN UNIS FKIP ENGLISH DEPARTMENT STUDENTS' INTERLANGUAGE

2018 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 46-54
Author(s):  
Irmala Sukendra ◽  
Agus Mulyana ◽  
Imam Sudarmaji
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Second Language Acquisition ◽  
Native Speakers ◽  
Communicative Competence ◽  
Mother Tongue ◽  
Universal Grammar ◽  
Similar System ◽  
The One ◽  
L1 Acquisition

Regardless to the facts that English is being taught to Indonesian students starting from early age, many Indonesian thrive in learning English. They find it quite troublesome for some to acquire the language especially to the level of communicative competence. Although Krashen (1982:10) states that “language acquirers are not usually aware of the fact that they are acquiring language, but are only aware of the fact that they are using the language for communication”, second language acquisition has several obstacles for learners to face and yet the successfulness of mastering the language never surmounts to the one of the native speakers. Learners have never been able to acquire the language as any native speakers do. Mistakes are made and inter-language is unavoidable. McNeili in Ellis (1985, p. 44) mentions that “the mentalist views of L1 acquisition hypothesizes the process of acquisition consists of hypothesis-testing, by which means the grammar of the learner’s mother tongue is related to the principles of the ‘universal grammar’.” Thus this study intends to find out whether the students go through the phase of interlanguage in their attempt to acquire second language and whether their interlanguage forms similar system as postulated by linguists (Krashen).

‘I me Mine’ The Acquisition of Dutch Pronominal Possessives by L1 Children, L2 Children and L2 Adults

2008 ◽  
Vol 155 ◽  
pp. 23-52
Author(s):  
Elma Nap-Kolhoff ◽  
Peter Broeder
Keyword(s):  
Adult Learners ◽  
Young Children ◽  
First Language ◽  
Spontaneous Speech ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Possessive Constructions ◽  
Speech Data ◽  
L2 Learners ◽  
Dutch Language ◽  
L1 Acquisition

Abstract This study compares pronominal possessive constructions in Dutch first language (L1) acquisition, second language (L2) acquisition by young children, and untutored L2 acquisition by adults. The L2 learners all have Turkish as L1. In longitudinal spontaneous speech data for four L1 learners, seven child L2 learners, and two adult learners, remarkable differences and similarities between the three learner groups were found. In some respects, the child L2 learners develop in a way that is similar to child L1 learners, for instance in the kind of overgeneralisations that they make. However, the child L2 learners also behave like adult L2 learners; i.e., in the pace of the acquisition process, the frequency and persistence of non-target constructions, and the difficulty in acquiring reduced pronouns. The similarities between the child and adult L2 learners are remarkable, because the child L2 learners were only two years old when they started learning Dutch. L2 acquisition before the age of three is often considered to be similar to L1 acquisition. The findings might be attributable to the relatively small amount of Dutch language input the L2 children received.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document