View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.

uk brought to you by CORE

provided by International Institute for Science, Technology and Education (IISTE): E-Journals

Journal of Literature, Languages and Linguistics - An Open Access International Journal

Vol.4 2014

The Nature of Language Acquisition: Where L1 and L2

Acquisition Meet?
Mohammed Q. Shormani
Assistant Professor of Linguistics, College of Arts, Ibb University, P.O. Box: 70270, Ibb, Yemen
Email: [email protected]

Abstract
Language acquisition (LA) is one of the widely researched topics, and perhaps the most. It is really a complex
process that has not been fully accounted for yet. There are as many questions remaining as there are many facts
that have been discovered in such a field and hence an adequate characterization of such a phenomenon is still a
matter of current and future research. Many researchers have asserted that though the majority of young children
acquire their mother tongue with no major difficulties, there are also specific conditions that have to be attained
in order for them to learn to speak (Shormani, 2012). For instance, since exposure to linguistic input plays an
essential role in the LA process, it is necessary for a child to acquire a language to be exposed to such linguistic
input and this requires him not to be deaf. Moreover, the exposure to linguistic input is conditioned and tied to
certain age (what has been known as puberty). In fact, how humans acquire language has been one of the top-
debated topics in human investigation. Thus, in this paper, I explore the nature of language acquisition in its both
spheres, i.e. L1 and L2. I tackle the knowledge of language as an abstract and mysterious type of knowledge
examining two most influential and most controversial theories, viz. behaviorism and mentalism and how each
alone fails to account for both L1 and L2 acquisition. I, thus, maintain that a well-defined and adequate theory
should be built on some kind of complementarity between both theories. I also briefly look at some attempts to
modelize L2 acquisition process discussing two influential models proposed in the literature, namely, Ellis’s
(1993) and Krashen’s (1982) based on the similarity and difference between L1 and L2 acquisition each holds,
respectively.

1. Introduction
How humans acquire language has been one of the top-debated topics in human investigation and research. It has
attracted a considerable number of theoretical and applied linguists, researchers and teachers alike. Different
theories and models such as behaviorism, mentalism, socialism, cognitivism and interactionism have tried to
account for how such a phenomenon takes place. In fact, the diversity of the present theories and models imply
that the phenomenon is not that easy to handle, on the one hand, and that there is no consensus among
researchers regarding such a topic of research, on the other hand. Perhaps, LA is the most controversial topic
human research has come across Shormani (2012). Now, the question is why is it so? In fact, the controversy and
non-consensus among researchers on how LA takes place comes from the topic it handles, viz. knowledge of
language. The latter is the most abstracted and complicated phenomenon human research has come across.
Language is a very systematized, precise and concise system. Language is mysterious having human-like nature:
it is born, grows, and sometimes dies, and meaning is its vital web; it is fluid-flexible but sometimes extremely
vague (Shormani, 2013a).
On the other hand, when language acquisition takes place, it usually follows a schedule, whatever language it is
to be learned. Thus, the process does not start when the child utters its first word but rather much earlier than that
(Chun, 1980). At the age of one month or so, most children are able to distinguish between their mothers’ voices
and the voices of other people, as well as some differences in the rhythm of speech and intonation produced by
those in their surroundings (Cook, 1983, 1996). In many cases, it is apparent that children are able to understand
the tone of voice as early as the age of two to four months, differentiating between joyful, angry, or soothing
tones. When the child is between six and nine months old, some simple utterances of parents are associated with
situations in which they are used, and thus infants learn the meanings of the first words (Mitchell & Myles,
1998; White, 1991, 2003; Cook, 1983, 1996). In addition, humans are distinguished from all other creatures in
being able to possess a language as the quintessentially human trait. It has been found that every time humans
talk, they are revealing something about language and its features and hence the facts of language structure are
not difficult to come by. However, acquiring L1 is something a normal child does successfully, in two to three
years and without the need for formal lessons. However, L2 acquisition seems to be of mysterious nature. How
humans acquire a SL in addition to the already existent one they possess, how, when, where and what factors
that affect such a process, among other questions constitute the crux of investigating LA phenomenon. Indeed,
such questions among others have been the main focus of theoretical and applied linguistics, second language
acquisition (SLA) researches and studies.

2. Knowledge of Language
Language is a very systematized, precise and concise system. Language is mysterious having human-like nature:

24
Journal of Literature, Languages and Linguistics - An Open Access International Journal
Vol.4 2014

it is born, grows, and sometimes dies, and meaning is its vital web. Language is fluid-flexible but sometimes
extremely vague (Shormani, 2013a). It is species-specific, viz. humans and only humans can acquire language
and no other creature could ever succeed in this process. However, we have nothing to do with acquiring such a
systematized system. This is very clear due to the fact that all normal children can acquire language. Children
with high or low intelligence can acquire their mother tongue equally for intelligence has nothing to do with such
acquisition. We acquire language as natural as we learn how to walk. Language acquisition takes place, indeed,
as naturally as leaves coming to a tree
Now, one may question the issue of our acquisition of language in that early age when we are unable to grasp
abstract objects and things. For this reason, there have been several theories trying to account for our knowledge
of language one of which is that we acquire language in Stimulus-Response-Reinforcement (SRR). This actually
is advocated by Behaviorism whose ideas are based on Skinner’s simple experiments on animals (Skinner,
1957). In fact, this theory maintains that language acquisition is a habit-formation process and hence, comparing
our acquisition of language to rats and very simple creatures like chimpanzees learning very simple tasks like
learning to get a banana when they are left hungry for a long time. However, this view of language acquisition
does not stand before those linguists who criticize such “nonsense” attempts in accounting for how we acquire
language (Chomsky, 1959, 1968).
Another view has been advocated by Chomsky in his biological ontology. According to Chomsky, humans are
endowed with an underlying predisposition which enables them to acquire language. Linguists (e.g. White, 2003,
Cook, 2003; Shormani, 2012) ascertain that such a predisposition is biologically endowed and genetically
“instilled” in our brain innately in the form of Universal Grammar (UG) which is “a set of principles, conditions
and rules that are elements or properties of all human languages not merely by accident but by necessity”
(Chomsky, 1981, p. 7). What we do then in our acquisition in Chomsky’s views is internalize the linguistic
system of the language spoken around us provided that we are exposed to sufficient and efficient input of such a
language.
Other researchers (e.g. Gass & Slinker, 2008; Bruner, 1983; Shormani, 2012) advocate that we acquire language
through nature and nurture. The former accounts for human language acquisition in that we humans are
endowed with a faculty in our minds which is concerned with providing us with capabilities necessary for
language acquisition. Such capabilities are encoded in our genes. In the latter, however, the nurture provides us
with the linguistic input necessarily required for language acquisition to take place. What is exactly meant by the
term “nurture” is the family, i.e. the people who speak the language around us. Thus, we acquire language
through two stages, namely, pre-linguistic and linguistic. In the pre-linguistic stage, infants start acquiring
language by attention-directing and attention-sharing to the objects around them and hence, establishing the
referential triangle, viz. “me, you and object” where me refers to the infant, you refers to adults around him and
object to things around (Shormani, 2013a).
The linguistic stage is divided into two substages, namely, vocal and verbal. The former refers to the cries,
cooing and babbling infants make. In the latter, however, infants start producing one-word utterances, two-word
utterances, etc. In principle, these utterances stand for complete sentences. For instance, a one-word utterance
produced by a child like Water! stands for a complete sentence, viz. I want water or I am thirsty. A two-word
utterance like Daddy home! stands also for a full sentence meaning Daddy is at home. In principle, our language
evolves through such stages; we internalize the linguistic system of the language being acquired, set rules of our
own, try to make our speech like that of the adults around us until we succeed acquiring it as a whole.

3. First Language Acquisition

L1 acquisition is a phenomenon in which a child learners his mother tongue. It is one of the mysterious topics
human research has come across. In fact, language acquisition, be it of L1 or L2, has witnessed a considerable
number of researches and studies. However, less has been discovered and much still mysterious. Thus, I will
investigate LA of L1 and L2 in terms of the most influential theories that have tried to account for answering
many questions and I think the best way to handle such issues is through such theories. Two of the most
influential and controversial theories are behaviorism and mentalism.
3.1. Behaviorism
In the 50s and 60s of the 20th century, behaviorism, a psycholinguistic approach to language acquisition
advocated by (Bloomfield, 1933; Skinner, 1957), was dominating the learning/teaching scene (Shormani, 2012).
In the behaviorist view, language acquisition is seen as any other type of learning, i.e. as the formation of habits
where human beings are exposed to linguistic input and learning takes place as responding to such input, and if
their responses are reinforced, learning takes place in what is so-called a three dimensional procedure, i.e.
stimulus-response-reinforcement. In other words, linguistic expressions are seen as stimuli, if a child’s responses
to them are reinforced, learning takes place but if not, learning will not take place. This actually makes it clear
that LA in behaviorism is based on conditioning. Imitation also has a very essential role to play in language
acquisition, be it of L1 or L2, as will be discussed below. Thus, L1 acquisition, from a behaviorist perspective,
involves a process of learning a set of habits as children respond to any stimuli in their environment.

25
Journal of Literature, Languages and Linguistics - An Open Access International Journal
Vol.4 2014

In fact, the behaviorist approach is psychological in nature. Thus, humans in their language acquisition have
been compared to low-intelligence creatures like animals (i.e. rats and birds) learning very simple tasks like
learning how a rat gets to the final route in a maze or a bird learning how to get food in a cage or even a
chimpanzee learning how to get sticks one into the other. In other words, behaviorists view language learning by
humans in the same way animals learn anything, that could happen just by chance, which is actually not.
Acquiring language is much more complex than this view. It involves many cognitive and non-cognitive
processes. In fact, the issue gets even more complex when examining the behaviorist view regarding L2
acquisition.
Now, as far as L2 acquisition is concerned, behaviorists view it as replacing the old linguistic habits with new
ones (Shormani, 2012). The former are those belonging to L1 which is already there as a set of well-established
responses in its speakers’ minds. In fact, L2 acquisition is seen as difficult because of the already existent
language in the human brain. In this view, learners try to connect the habits of their L1 to those of L2. This
connection actually results in language transfer. This transfer has two types: positive and negative. In the former
a linguistic structure is transferred from L1 into L2 but the result is a grammatical structure. This happens when
the transferred structure is similar to a structure in L2. In the latter, however, the learner transfers a linguistic
structure or rule from L1 into L2, but this does not exist in L2. The result of the former is a grammatical
utterance while that of the latter is an ungrammatical one. Shormani (2012, p. 86) exemplifies the positive
transfer in the case of Arabic-speaking learner as follows: when such a learner says: “If you study hard, you will
pass the exam, which is a well-formed sentence in English.” He also exemplifies the negative transfer as when
the learners says: “Then, went he to college early, in which he just transfers an Arabic word order, viz. VSO into
English in which such a word order does not exist” emphasis in the original). Positive transfer according to
Shormani is called a facilitating factor and negative transfer is a disfacilitating one. Lado (1957, p. 58f) describes
such a phenomenon stating that there are “many cases that the grammatical structure of the native language tends
to be transferred to the foreign language.” Lado also maintains that those structures which are similar in both
languages will be easier for the learner, and those which are not, are difficult.
In addition, the behaviorist approach with respect to teaching has a twofold implication: behaviorists strongly
believe that practice makes perfect, i.e. learning will take place by imitating and repeating the same structure
time after time, and hence teaching should focus on difficult structures, viz. those L2 structures that are different
from those of L1. Therefore, the behaviorist approach leads to comparisons between L1 and L2 to find out the
points of difference so as to make teaching address those differences in which the difficulty lies. On the other
hand, behaviorism as a theory of language acquisition has been attacked and criticized. This criticism has been
initiated when researchers’ interest begins to be directed towards mentalism (i.e. a biological approach in
nature). In fact, at that time linguistics has witnessed a shift from structural linguistics that was based on the
description of the surface structure of large corpus of language to generative linguistics. Generative linguistics
has emphasized the rule-governed and creative nature of human languages. The pioneer of this shift has been the
American linguist Noam Chomsky as early as he first published his Syntactic Structures in 1957. In fact,
Chomsky begins his criticism of behaviorism when he attacks Skinner's book The Verbal Behaviour 1957 in
what is called Chomsky’s (1959) A Review of B. F. Skinner's Verbal Behavior which is a fierce critique of not
only Skinner's views but also of behaviorism as a whole. In Chomsky’s own words, “I had intended this review
not specifically as a criticism of Skinner's speculations regarding language, but rather as a more general critique
of behaviorist (I would now prefer to say “empiricist”) speculation as to the nature of higher mental
processes”(p. 26). Thus, Chomsky argues that language has creativity. In other words, children acquiring their
first language do not by any means learn and produce a large set of sentences (i.e. corpus). Rather, they create
sentences they have never learned and or come across before. What they do is internalize rules rather than strings
of words (Chomsky, 1965, 1968). He further argues that if children learn language by imitation, then how it is
that they produce sentences like Jim goed and it breaked. This, in fact, shows that children are not copying
language from their environment but applying rules. Thus, Chomskyan School was upset by the idea of
comparing the behavior of ‘rats’ in labs learning to perform simple tasks to that of children learning a language
which involves complexity and abstractions. For instance, Dulay et al (1982, p.6) hold that language can never
be acquired “by imitating, memorizing and being rewarded for saying the correct things.” In addition,
internalizing the linguistic system of a language by children implies that they are active in the language
acquisition process and not just imitators as held by behaviorism. Thus, such behaviorist views regarding
language acquisition lead to attacking behaviorism as a whole, there is much to be attributed to environment,
however.
3.2. Mentalism
As has been stated above, the behaviorist view of language acquisition is, to some extent, not adequate because
of its failure to account, among many things, for the occurrence of language, which is not in the input learners
are exposed to. Therefore, researchers attempt to look for an alternative theoretical framework (Long, 1983,
2003). Here, researchers have abandoned looking at ‘nurture’, i.e. how environmental factors shape learning and
look at ‘nature’, i.e. the role of innate properties of human mind in shaping learning. This new paradigm is

26
Journal of Literature, Languages and Linguistics - An Open Access International Journal
Vol.4 2014

referred to as mentalist or nativist in orientation. In the mentalist theoretical framework of language learning,
there are many things emphasized like the fact that only human beings are capable of acquiring language. In that,
the human mind is pre-equipped with a faculty for language learning, i.e. LAD (=Language Acquisition Device),
and input is needed but only to “trigger’ the operation of the LAD (Shormani, 2012).
Now, taking the complexity and abstraction of language to which Chomsky has provided examples such as the
rules underlying the formation of questions in any language and the use of reflexive pronouns in English
(Chomsky, 1968), one feels embarrassed by the quick acquisition of these given the limited input the children are
exposed to. This has been termed by Chomsky as Plato's Problem. Further, Chomsky (1987) adds that there are
too complex linguistic structures that cannot be learned so quickly from the environment around children. The
first one is wh-questions and their formation. The second includes pieces of language involving ambiguity. The
former, for instance, includes such wh-questions as what are you talking about? where such constructions
involve several syntactic complicated operations like subject-verb inversion, wh-movement, among others. The
latter involves structures like Ali requested Alia to leave where there are two possible interpretations. The first is
It is Ali who leaves and the second is It is Alia who leaves.
In addition, LA in mentalism has been seen as a hypothesis testing phenomenon Cook (1983). Cook emphasizes
that “a child creates a hypothesis about the grammar more or less at random” (p.6) allowed by UG and, then,
when he produces an utterance in accordance with this hypothesis, he will get a feedback from the surroundings
whether from parents, caretakers or whosoever, and this feedback will prove to him whether the produced
utterance is correct or the otherwise. In fact, the child cannot decide for himself that the hypothesis created is
correct unless he gets feedback telling him, if or not, that he has committed a mistake. Self-hypothesis creating
and testing can be formulated only in later stages of acquisition, otherwise how is it that a child may create
hypotheses in an early stage when he is unable to deal with abstract concepts? To me, as it seems, in language
acquisition, the child has devises hypotheses compatible with the linguistic input presented to him. After that, he
“must select from the store of potential grammars a specific one that is appropriate” (Cook, 1983, p.6-7) and
coincide with the linguistic data he is exposed to.
In fact, the revolutionary ideas in LA have attracted many researchers to investigate the hidden secrets of
language acquisition in particular and of language as a whole in general. Many linguists and researchers (e.g.
Brown, 1973) get interested in such ideas and conduct a considerable number of studies, be they cross-sectional
or longitudinal, on children or adults. Brown (1973) has done study on the acquisition of particular morphemes
and found that there are similarities in acquiring the morphemes –ed, -s/-es by children acquiring English
irrespective of their L1s. In addition, many researchers have traced the stages through which L1 is acquired
allover the world. Mitchell and Myles (1998), for instance, hold that children allover the world go through
similar stages in their acquisition of their native languages irrespective of the languages being acquired. These
stages are presented as follows from (Mitchell and Myles, 1998 based on Aitchison, 1989, p.75).
Language stage Beginning age
Crying birth
Cooing 6 weeks
Babbling 6 months
Intonation patterns 8 months
One-word utterances 1 year
Two-word utterances 18 months
Word inflections 2 years
Rare or complex constructions 5 years
Mature speech 10 years
An interested phenomenon researchers have looked at is the stages children go through while acquiring irregular
verbs in English. For instance, Shormani (2013a) maintains that for acquiring the past form of the verb go,
children pass through three stages. These are illustrated and exemplified as follows: Daddy goed, Daddy wented
and Daddy went. Only in the third stage, they fully acquire the verb and its forms. It has been also found that
children all over the world “not only acquire negatives around the same age but they also mark the negative in
similar ways in all languages, by initially attaching some negative marker to the outside of the sentence: no go to
bed … and gradually moving the negative marker inside the sentence” (Mitchell & Myles,1998, p. 26f).
Consider the following stages of acquiring the negatives, no and not and contracting the latter onto did.
Stage 1
Daddy go no
not big dog
Stage 2
Here no cats
Mommy can't dance
Stage 3
She not crying

27
Journal of Literature, Languages and Linguistics - An Open Access International Journal
Vol.4 2014

No one didn't come

In stage 1 above, the negative particle is placed outside the utterance whether initially or finally. In stage 2,
however, the negative particle appears inside the utterance and contractions appear, too, as in Mommy can't
dance. In stage 3, auxiliary + not is acquired though some errors occur. It can be noticed that the copula be has
not been acquired yet. Double negative also appears. So, looking at these examples, it can be hypothesized that
children’s language is rule- governed, the rules children create do not correspond to those of adults, however. A
strong piece of evidence that children do not merely imitate in a parrot-like fashion in their acquisition of
language but rather internalize rules of the language is that children produce forms like writed and goed which
they have never heard before and hence they are not imitating. Another piece of evidence is when children
acquire the plural morpheme. For example, children have been shown a picture of a wug and told that this is a
wug. When adding another picture of another wug, they have been told Now there's another one. There are two
of them. There are two…, 91% of the children replied wugs (Mitchell & Myles,1998). What this implies also is
that children are not mere imitators and passive interlocutors in LA but rather they are active, they interact with
those around and process linguistic input, internalize the linguistic system of their language and devise rules as
well.
In addition, when children formulate or devise incorrect rules, it is difficult to correct them. In other words,
correcting their mistakes by a caretaker, for instance, is not that easy. Children are found to be resistant and
persistent to such corrections. Mitchell & Myles (1998, p. 28f) report on a study showing how children do not
respond to correction provided to them. This is illustrated as follows.
CHILD: I want the other one spoon.
FATHER: You mean, you want THE OTHER SOOPN?
CHILD: Yes, I want the other one spoon, please, Daddy.
FATHER: Can you say the other spoon?
CHILD: Other…one...spoon.
FATHER: Say ….‘other’
CHILD: other.
FATHER: ‘Spoon’
CHILD: Spoon
FATHER: ‘Other…Spoon’
CHILD: Other ….spoon. Now give me other one spoon?
On the other hand, this does not mean that what has been expressed by Mentalism is absolutely true. For
instance, Bruner (1983), in what is known as interactionism, maintains that environment plays a major role in
language acquisition more than LAD as suggested by Chomsky and proposes instead a Language Acquisition
Support System (LASS). In fact, what Bruner means by this is that the family or entourage of the child plays a
central role in the acquisition process. However, he places more emphasis on caretaker and claims that child
language acquisition depends in the first place on Baby Talk provided to him by the caretaker whose speech is a
very simplified code (Ferguson, 1964; Shormani, 2012). However, to me, as it stands, the role played by the
environment in language acquisition cannot be denied but not to the extent advocated by Bruner and his
thoughts. In fact, interactionism has been based on Socio-cultural Development Theory founded by the Russian
psychologist Lev Vygotsky which, to me, is not acquisition-oriented. In fact, interactionism as a whole provides
questionable issues such as how is it that from a very simplified linguistic input provided to him by the caretaker,
the child formulates so complicated hypotheses and rules such as those concerning wh-formation in English, for
instance? In addition, interactionism addresses only L1 acquisition and does not tackle that of L2. These facts,
among others, to me, make interactionism not that steady and reliable approach to LA in its two spheres.
Apart from this, Chomsky places much emphasis on the innate properties a child is born with and attributes
language acquisition to such properties. He focuses on this aspect ignoring the salient role played by the
environment. In fact, he seems to reduce language to its syntax and hence regarding meaning as a secondary
component. For instance, a sentence such as Colourless green ideas sleep furiously may be considered as part of
the English language, for it is syntactically correct, and therefore worth of study by syntacticians, though it has
no meaning. An utterance such as The teacher he not teaches today, on the other hand, is of no interest to him
simply because it is not syntactically correct and hence ignoring the meaning expressed by this sentence. Further,
mentalism disregards the social situation in which language is normally produced. Specifically, Chomsky
disregards the situation in which the child learns his first language albeit somewhere else he attributes very little
to environment in such a process (Shormani, 2012).

4. Second Language Acquisition

As has been discussed so far, the first language a human acquires is his L1, and if he is to acquire another
language, it means that the latter takes place when there is already an existent language in his brain. This area of
research has been initiated only in the 2nd half of the 20th century (Ellis, 1997; Cook, 1983; Shormani, 2012,
among many others). For instance, Ellis (1997) argues that SLA emergence is not accidentally in this time but as

28
Journal of Literature, Languages and Linguistics - An Open Access International Journal
Vol.4 2014

a result of “the global Village” and the “the World Wide Web” when communication among people has
expanded beyond their local speech communities. It is because of these fast and vast changes on allover the
globe, it has been necessary to learn a second language. In fact, SLA has received so much research but again
there is still no consensus due to the complexity of the subject matter and human diversity of thoughts. It is a
field “about which everyone seems to have an opinion” (Gass& Selinker, 2008, p.xv). For instance, some
linguists argue that SLA is a process whereby people acquire a language subsequent to their L1. It is the
“systematic study of how people acquire a second language” (Ellis, 1997, p. 3). Other researchers (e.g.
Shormani, 2012; Schachter, 1990; Schumann, 1978) maintain that to learn a second language is to get closer to
the “Other” culturally, socially and economically and so on. Some others (e.g. Gass& Selinker, 2008) see SLA
as a multidisciplinary area defining it as “the process of learning another language after the basics of the first
have been acquired, starting at about five years of age and thereafter” (p.10).
However, a question should be raised here, i.e. is there any difference or similarity between SLA and that of L1?
And if so, to what extent could this difference or similarity be stated? Let’s try to answer this question in terms
of both theories. As far as behaviorism is concerned, L1 acquisition is seen as a process of making use of what
has been called the black box being “filled” with linguistic knowledge as the child acquires his L1 and continues
to do so (White, 2000, 2003; Chomsky, 1965; Cook, 1983, 2003; Chun, 1980; Pinker, 1989; Gass & Selinker,
2008; Dulay et al 1982; McLaughlin, 1987; Saville-Troike, 2006). What happens is that a child is exposed to
linguistic stimuli and gets reinforced if his produced piece of language is correct. Then, the child imitates those
who are around and constitutes a language. On the other hand, SLA acquisition takes place in a period when the
black box is not “empty.” In other words, SLA comes when there is already an existent language in the brain. L2
acquisition, then, is replacing the old linguistic “habits” with new ones where the former belong to L1 and the
later to L2. Thus, there exists a difference between L1 and L2 insomuch as behaviorism is concerned.
However, as far as mentalism is concerned, Chun (1980) maintains that there is a similarity between L1 and L2
acquisition which is that both processes result in a language system which is not like that of the adult or native
speaker’s norm. In addition, learners of both systems progress through a series of stages by means of
internalizing rules about each linguistic system and making use of them in their production. Brown (1973) in his
morpheme studies has shown that learners of L1 and L2 develop through the same stages. He has concluded that
and as far as English as SL is concerned, acquiring the plural morpheme –s or the past morpheme, -ed, L1 and
L2 learners pass through the same stages. However, acquisition of L1 and L2 are still different, and, to me, this
difference is peripheral. L1 acquisition takes place when learners are still too young to deal with such an abstract
process which involves internalizing linguistic structures and rules. However, L2 acquirers children or adults
find themselves in very different situations than children acquiring their L1. Many researchers point out that L2
learners are older and smarter, already have some knowledge of at least one language, and probably have very
different motivations for acquiring an L2 than they did for learning their L1. The most salient two differences
between L1 and L2 learners are “age and previous linguistic knowledge” which have generated considerable
research and controversy emphasized and widely discussed in critical period studies. To Dulay et al, (1982),
there is no difference between both processes holding that it is “[o]ne’s efforts [that] can end in the acquisition of
native-fluency or a stumbling repertoire of sentences soon forgotten”(p.3). They have ascribed this difference to
the role of the learner in acquiring the new language and that of the teacher who teaches it. The learner does not
need particular “inborn talent” to be successful in learning that language. Rather, what the learner and teacher
need is only to “do it right” (p.3, emphasis mine). This issue will be much clear in the next section.
4.1. L2 Learning or Acquisition?
Differentiating between learning and acquisition, Krashen (1981, 1982), attributing the former to L2 and the
latter to L1, claims that learning comes as a result of formal instruction, i.e. conscious knowledge of “easy” rules
of any second language being learned, such as past tense form and subject-verb agreement in English, for
instance. He further claims that this knowledge can be accessed by learners who are monitor-users when they 1)
have time, 2) focus accuracy, and 3) know the rule. An unspeeded, discrete-point test may meet all such
conditions. Whether the learner is a child or an adult, most of SL, according to Krashen, is acquired via the
creative construction process, i.e. through the processing of comprehensible input received in natural
communication. The result of this informal exposure is the acquired system, or acquisition, that is, what the
learner knows about a language at the unconscious level. It is the acquired system that does most of the work in
normal SL use, the learned system acting only as a monitor, planning and editing the output from the acquired
system on the rare occasions when the three conditions for its use are met.
Nevertheless, agreeing with Dulay et al (1982), Ellis (1997) argues that if there is a difference, it has to be
accounted in terms of individual differences, which depend on effort, attitudes, amount of exposure, quality of
teaching, and plain talent. He adds that second language in this sense does not contrast with ‘foreign’ language.
What Ellis means by this is that there is no difference between to learn a language in a natural setting and to
learn a language in the classroom. Ellis’ view of SLA contrasts considerably with the view held by Krashen as
seen above. Saville-Troike (2006) maintains that language can be acquired in a formal or an informal setting
without distinguishing between learning and acquisition. In this view, she supports Cook’s (1983) and Ellis’s

29
Journal of Literature, Languages and Linguistics - An Open Access International Journal
Vol.4 2014

(1997) views of language acquisition and contrasts with Krashen’s. To her, there are two types of acquisition,
viz. formal and informal. The former occurs when a Russian student, for instance, takes a class in Arabic and
vice versa and the latter occurs when an Arabic-speaking child is brought to Japan and hence “picks up”
Japanese when he attends school and plays with his Japanese peers. So, for the latter to take place,
communication is a necessary step in the acquisition process while for the former “specialized instruction” is
maintained. In addition, she questions three basic issues central to language acquisition, viz. the exact knowledge
L2 learners come to know, the way in which such a learner acquires this knowledge and the reasons behind the
native-like acquisition by some learners but not by some others. She believes that there is no complete consensus
among SLA researchers regarding such phenomena ascribing such controversy to the different methodologies
applied in studying SLA which are different in nature and that researchers who study SLA come “from academic
disciplines which differ greatly in theory and research methods” (Saville-Troike, 2006, p. 6). Further, Mitchell &
Myles (1998) see SLA as “learning any language to any level, provided only that the learning of the ‘second’
language takes place sometime later than the acquisition of the first language” (p.29).
Gass & Selinker (2008) support Krashen’s view in distinguishing L1 from L2 acquisition as they hold that the
latter involves formal and systematic settings like classroom instruction while the former is unsystematic and
unstructured. The former is conscious and the later takes place subconsciously. However, what can be
considered to be an addition introduced by them to the field of SLA study is that they have used the term
acquisition as referring to learning or using a second or foreign language. However, they hold that there is a
strong relationship between L2 acquisition and L1, in that, L1 acquisition underlies the basis of SLA and that
many questions put forth by second language research stem from the same questions in child language
acquisition. However, this distinction has been criticized by many researchers (e.g. Zobl, 1995; Robinson, 1997;
Long, 1983). For instance, Long (1983, p.361) criticizes Krashen’s ideas about distinguishing learning from
acquisition holding that attaining formal operations stage of cognitive development is suggested by “conscious
(meta-)linguistic knowledge.” If this is true, he maintains, “young children cannot learn or monitor in these
technical senses” (emphasis in the original). Children, he adds, will not get any benefit from such formal
learning if such ways are followed. Likewise, it is not possible for either children or adults to profit “from
instruction at “intermediate” proficiency levels or beyond.” This is, he assumes, due to the fact that “advances in
proficiency at later stages via learning would involve more complex rules.” These rules are neither known
(described by pedagogic grammarians), teachable, learnable, usable, nor several of these. In fact, what Long
emphasizes is that SLA should provide the learners, be they children or adults, with “a source of comprehensible
input (for acquisition) to beginners, who often cannot obtain this elsewhere” instead of teaching few rules or
even few dialogues which have no benefit for both kinds of learners.
4.2. SLA Modelization
What one gets from the above always-diverged and rarely-converged views regarding LA, be it of L1 or L2, is
that LA process is not that easy to handle due to the complexity of the topic being researched as a very
mysterious and abstracted phenomenon (i.e. knowledge of language). One also gets clear that LA is a very hot-
debated phenomenon and that there are still many more facts that are still out of reach in such a field of study.
This actually leads us to conclude that investigating human language and its acquisition is one of the complicated
phenomena, if not the most!
Accordingly, there have been several attempts in SLA literature for there being modelized methods SLA process
could be understood through. Those models are different in scope and nature. For instance, there are those
behaviorism-oriented and those mentalism-oriented. The former are best represented by Spolsky’s (1989) where
interaction among several components leads to learner’s motivation, which is in turn integrated with some of his
personal characteristics like age, personality, etc. until the acquisition will have been attained. The latter,
however, are best represented by Towell & Hawkins’s (1994) who have proposed a model for SLA based on
UG. This model “attempts to integrate how learners [acquire] the L2 system with how they learn to use [it]”
(Mitchell & Myles, 1998, p. 92). They have, in fact, made use of UG properties to account for the reasons behind
the learners following rigid stages in their L2 acquisition and how and why certain grammatical properties occur
before others. There are also those models which are based on either the similarity between L1 and L2
acquisition or the difference between them. I will discuss these in more details as follows.
4.2.1. Similarity-based Modelization
One of these similarity-based models is proposed by Ellis’s (1993). As can be seen in Figure 1, some kind of
difference between “input, intake, and implicit L2 knowledge is maintained” (Shormani, 2012, p.64). Input is
represented by the “samples of the L2 that the learner is exposed to as a result of contact with the language in
communication (oral and written).” According to Ellis, formal instruction provides input where learners are
exposed to the L2 they are learning. Further, intake is the “linguistic properties in the input to which the learner
is attended.” Thus, input in Ellis’s model comprises intake as the former is the whole linguistic data a learner is
exposed to. However, the learner will not process all such data. He will process only some of such data which
constitute the intake. When such intake is processed, it will be incorporated in his linguistic system and finally
become implicit knowledge of the L2. In fact, in Ellis’s model, there are two ways in which the learner

30
Journal of Literature, Languages and Linguistics - An Open Access International Journal
Vol.4 2014

internalizes the implicit knowledge: the first is by electing intake out of the input he is exposed to. The second is
directly through explicit knowledge that is learned through formal instruction.

Figure 2: Ellis’ Model for SLA based on (Ellis, 1993)

4.2.1.2. Difference-based Modelization
Krashen’s model of SLA has been one of the most controversial in SLA field. In fact, the controversy caused by
Krashen’s model lies in that Krashen has distinguished between acquisition and learning. To Krashen, the
former is that process which takes place spontaneously and naturally in an informal setting where learners are
not aware of the language rules; in that, it takes place subconsciously while the latter is a process which takes
place in formal setting like classroom and the learners are aware of the rules of the language they are learning. In
Krashen’s view, learning results in “knowing about language.” Summarizing what accounts for language
acquisition be it of L1 or L2, Krashen (1982) states:
What theory implies, quite simply, is that language acquisition, first or second, occurs when
comprehension of real messages occurs, and when the acquirer is not ‘on the defensive... Language
acquisition does not require extensive use of conscious grammatical rules, and does not require tedious
drill. It does not occur overnight, however. Real language acquisition develops slowly, and speaking
skills emerge significantly later than listening skills, even when conditions are perfect. The best
methods are therefore those that supply ‘comprehensible input’ in low anxiety situations, containing
messages that students really want to hear. These methods do not force early production in the second
language, but allow students to produce when they are ‘ready,’ recognizing that improvement comes
from supplying communicative and comprehensible input, and not from forcing and correcting
production (p. 6-7)
In fact, Krashen’s model consists of five hypotheses. The Acquisition-Learning Distinction Hypothesis states
that adults have two different ways to develop competence in a language, viz. language acquisition and language
learning. Language acquisition is a subconscious process like that of a child learning his L1. Language acquirers
are not consciously aware of the grammatical rules of the language, but rather develop a “feel” for correctness.
“In a non-technical language, acquisition is ‘picking-up’ a language.” Language learning, on the other hand,
refers to the “conscious knowledge of a second language, knowing the rules, being aware of them, and being
able to talk about them.” Moreover, in the Natural Order hypothesis, Krashen claims that “the acquisition of
grammatical structures proceeds in a predictable order.” For a given language, some grammatical structures tend
to be acquired early, others late, regardless of the L1. In the Monitor hypothesis, however, Krashen states that the
language that one has subconsciously acquired initiates learners’ utterances in a LA and is responsible for their
fluency whereas the language that learners have consciously learned acts as an editor in situations where the
learner has enough time to edit, is focused on form, and knows the rule, such as a grammar test in a language
classroom or when carefully writing a composition.
As has been stated somewhere else above, Krashen’ input hypothesis answers the question of how a language
acquirer develops competence over time. It states that a language acquirer who is at “level i” must receive
comprehensible input that is at “level i+1.” Krashen’s last hypothesis of the model is the Affective Filter
Hypothesis, stating that a number of ‘affective variables’ play a facilitative role in SLA. These variables include:
motivation, self-confidence and anxiety. Krashen claims that learners with high motivation, self-confidence, a

31
Journal of Literature, Languages and Linguistics - An Open Access International Journal
Vol.4 2014

good self-image, and a low level of anxiety are better equipped for success in SLA and vice versa. In other
words, when the filter is ‘up,’ it impedes language acquisition whereas when it is ‘down’ learners succeed in
their acquisition.

Figure2: Krashen’s SLA Model, based on (Krashen, 1982, p. 16-32)

5. One Theory or Many

As has been stated above, LA process studies lead to disagreement among researchers and those interested in the
issue more than agreement. However, I completely agree with those who consider LA in its two spheres the
same process (e.g. Long, 1983; Ellis, 1997; Dulay et al, 1982). I disagree, however, with those who see L1 and
L2 acquisition as two different processes. It is a fact that both processes result in a linguistic system which is
both competence-based and performance-based. In the case of L1 acquisition, for instance, children know tacitly,
innately and implicitly their L1s (i.e. competence), and they use such knowledge in different daily life situations
(performance). The same thing is true regarding L2 acquisition. As a process, L2 acquisition results in a
linguistic system manifesting itself in both levels. When an L2 learner makes a mistake or even an error, it does
not mean that he does not have the same competence, specifically beginning and intermediate learners. It,
however, means that he is still passing through stages in his acquisition process like children when internalizing
their L1 linguistic system and making errors such as I goed. Children are also more even persistent and resistant
to correction, as has been seen above, than adults. If this not so, how is it that children utter expressions like the
one above and as they get older, they correct themselves? The reason is that children at this stage may not have
passed through sufficient linguistic input, on the one hand, and probably they do not get such a kind of guidance
(linguistic guidance from parents or someone else) that leads them to master the structure concerned, which is to
a great extent similar to adults in their early acquisition stages. Moreover, in both cases performance is never a
perfect mirror to competence. Further, a child’s competence is tacit and implicit and the same thing is true in the
case of adults, particularly advanced learners. In addition, adults perhaps surpass children in that their
competence, in addition to being tacit, is explicit. Explicit in the sense that they (adults) know the language and
know about language. In other words, if you ask a child Why do you say an expression as such? He will not be
able to tell you so and so, i.e. he has no justification for why he utters it as such, which is not the case with adults.
Thus, I claim that what really matters is how much adults are attended to the linguistic input they are probably
exposed to, how much they are motivated to learn and master L2, etc.. It is true that adults get fossilized but not
all of them (Shormani, 2013b). There are many examples of L2 learners who have native or native-like
competence, and there are many examples of native speakers who are not perfect in their L1, and the reasons
could be several for each case.
Thus, based on such views, I claim that a theory of language acquisition should involve and focus on
complementarity between mentalism and behaviorism attributing equal portion to each’s factors. In other words,
an adequate approach to language acquisition, to me, should be based on both theories. Regarding the former, it
is true that UG is “instilled” in every human’s brain and without it no acquisition takes place. A piece of
evidence for this is a child born with Down syndrome. This child cannot acquire language though fully exposed
to environment. In the case of left hemisphere damage, children appear to be more flexible than adults. Some
researchers (e.g. Lenneberg, 1967; Ellis, 1997) provide reasons of such flexibility arguing that children’s brains
are more plastic than adults. In other words, if a child’s left hemisphere gets damaged, he can acquire or recover
language but adults cannot, and if the latter pass through the same experience, the result is permanent aphasia.
Another example is manifested in those who get some damage to the left hemisphere resulting in language loss
among other disorders. However, as far as behaviorism is concerned, no one could deny the role played by
environment and its factors in shaping language, and Genie and Isabelle are just an example. Genie, for instance,
has been discovered at the age of thirteen or so in the forest. In spite of the extensive language program she has
been subjected to, she hardly acquires words but not syntax. Cases exemplifying the roles played by both

32
Journal of Literature, Languages and Linguistics - An Open Access International Journal
Vol.4 2014

theories put us vis-à-vis many facts of the nature of language acquisition process. In other words, considering the
roles played by UG properties and those of environment requires us to assign equal role to each theory and doing
so, I claim, would account fairly enough for how language is acquired, be it L1 or L2. Thus, if nature (i.e. UG)
provides children with principles and parameters, and if the former are universal, and the latter are language-
specific, nurture (i.e. environment) must be there to activate the former and trigger the latter. In fact, the theory I
am claiming needs further studies and research, and I leave this to future research.

6. Conclusion
In this paper, I have provided a theoretical perspective of the nature of LA in its both spheres, i.e. L1 and L2
acquisition, a phenomenon that has attracted much of theoretical and applied linguists and LA researchers’
interests. I have shown how such scholars are not in consensus regarding such an issue. Nor is there any
agreement among them on the theories and/or models that try to account for such a phenomenon. I have shown
how the two most influential and controversial theories, namely, behaviorism and mentalism account for such
phenomena and how each alone fails to account for both. The way L2 acquisition has been modelized has been
presented in two most influential models, namely, Ellis’s (1993) and Krashen’s (1982) based on each’s view
regarding the similarity and difference between L1 and L2 acquisition. In the course of this paper, I have
maintained that there is no difference between L1 and L2 acquisition since both result in a linguistic system
assuming that some L2 learners, specifically adults, do not reach native or native-like competence because they
get fossilized and their fossilization can be ascribed to different linguistic and nonlinguistic factors. Based on this
view, I maintain that a theory based on a complementarity between both mentalism and behaviorism can be
proposed and utilized. This is so because the former provides well-established foundations for the latter, and I
leave this for future research.

References
Bloomfield, L. (1933). Language. New York: Henry Holt and Co.
Brown, R. (1973). A first Language: the early stages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bruner, J. (1983). Child's Talk: Learning to Use Language. New York: Norton.
Chun, J. (1980). A Survey of Research in Second Language Acquisition. The Modern Language Journal, 64(3),
287-296.
Cook, V. (1983). Chomsky’s Universal Grammar and Second Language Learning. Applied Linguistics, 6(1), 2-
18.
Cook, V. (1996). Strategies and UG Theories. Unpublished Paper Presented at Seville ca Conference.
Cook, V. (2003). Changing the First Language in the L2 User’s Mind. In Cook, V. (ed) (2003), Effects of the
Second Language on the First, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Chomsky, N. (1959). A Review of B. F. Skinner's Verbal Behavior. Language 35, 26-58.
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. 1968). Language and Mind. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
Chomsky, N. (1987). Transformational Grammar: Past, Present and Future. In Studies in English language and
Literature (33- 80) Kyoto: Kyoto University.
Dulay, H., Burt, M. & Krashen, S. (1982). Language Two. New York: Oxford University Press
Ellis, R. (1993) Second language acquisition and the structural syllabus. TESOL Quarterly 27(91)–113.
Ellis, R. (1997). Second Language Acquisition. New York: Oxford University Press.
Ferguson, C. (1964). Baby Talk in Six Languages. American Anthropologist, 66(6), 103-114.
Gass, S. & Selinker, L. (2008). Handbook of Second Language Acquisition: An Introductory Course. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Krashen, S. (1981). Second language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and Practices in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.
Lado, R. (1957). Linguistics across Cultures: Applied Linguistics for Language Teachers. Ann Arbor, University
of Michigan Press.
Lenneberg, E. (1967). Biological Foundations of Language. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Long, M. (1983). Does second language instruction make a difference?: A review of Research, TESOL
Quarterly, 17(3), 359–382.
Long, M. (2003). Stabilization and fossilization in interlanguage development. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long
(Eds.), Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (487–536). Oxford: Blackwell.
McLaughlin, B. (1987). Theories of Second-Language Learning, Edward Arnold, London.
Mitchell, R. & Myles, F. (1998). Second Language Learning Theories. London: Arnold.
Pinker, S. (1989). Learnability and Cognition: The Acquisition of Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Robinson, P. (1997). Individual differences and the fundamental similarity of implicit and explicit adult second

33
Journal of Literature, Languages and Linguistics - An Open Access International Journal
Vol.4 2014

language learning . Language Learning , (47) (1), 45 99.

Saville-Troike, M. (2006). Introducing Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Schachter, J. (1990). On the Issue of Completeness in Second Language Acquisition. Second Language
Research, 6(2), 93-124.
Schumann, J. (1978). The pidginization process: A model for second language acquisition. Rowley, MA:
Newbury House.
Shormani, M. (2012). L2 Acquisition in the Arab World: An Empirical Study of Yemeni Learners' English
Syntactic and Semantic Error Gravity. Saarbrücken: LAMBERT Academic Publishing, Germany.
Shormani, M. (2013a). Fossilization and Plateau Effect in Second Language Acquisition. Language in India, 13,
763- 784.
Shormani, M. (2013b).An Introduction to English Syntax: A Generative Approach. Saarbrücken: LAMBERT
Academic Publishing, Germany.
Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal Behaviour. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Spolsky, B. (1989). Conditions for Second Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
White, L. (1991). Adverb Placement in Second Language Acquisition: Some Effects of Positive and Negative
Evidence in the Classroom. Second Language Research, 7, 133-161.
White, L. (1998). Second language acquisition and Binding Principle B: Child/Adult Differences Second
Language Research 14(4), 425–439
White, L. (2000). Second language acquisition: from initial to final state. In J. Archibald (ed.), Second Language
Acquisition and Linguistic Theory (130-155). Blackwell.
White, L. (2003) Second Language Acquisition and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Zobl, H. (1995). Converging Evidence for the “Acquisition-Learning” Distinction. Applied Linguistics, 16, 35-
56.

34