論文（Article）

Exploring the Similarities of First and

Second Language Acquisition

ミ ナ・リ ー
Mina Lee

Identifying specific similarities and differences between the ways in which people learn
their first and second languages can be an important component in understanding the types
of problems language learners face. This is not only useful for language educators' own
background knowledge but can also inform classroom management and course design.
This paper explores a number of characteristics that are common to both first and second
language acquisition. One of the main similarities is that both first and second language
acquisition follow a very similar pattern of development stages: the silent period, formulaic
speech, and structural semantic simplification.
Another similarity is that in both first and second language acquisition, providing the com-
fortable learning environment is crucial to bring positive attitudes to the learning process.
The final similarity can be seen in error making patterns. During the process of learning
second language, errors made by students, especially young learners are similar to those
made by children learning their native language.

Key Words : First Language Acquisition, Second Language Acquisition, L1, L2,
Similarities, Language Teaching

A significant number of linguists and academics have Grammar’ (UG) (Cook, 2014) suggests that every
discussed one of the most complex and controversial language has some of the same grammar rules, such
phenomena in language teaching: first and second as asking a question, making negative statements,
language acquisition. It is strongly claimed by some identifying gender or suggesting that something
linguists that there should be a clear distinction happened in the past or present. According to this
between the two: one is language acquisition, and one theory, a child needs only to follow the particular
is language learning (Krashen,1983). Krashen (1983) set of rules that his/ her parents or people around
claims that language acquisition is an unintentional them follow to understand and produce their mother
process. It is best described as children acquiring tongue. In other words, their environment deter-
their mother tongue subconsciously, unaware of the mines which language is used, but they are born with
fact they are ‘learning’ a language or of the grammar tools to learn any language effectively. Clashen and
rules or structure of the language. This argument Muysken (1989) claim that UG may not be available
is supported by Lightbown (2004), who claims in second language acquisition as other structures
that children are not provided with the rules of the override UG in L2 acquisition, which makes second
language, and they are not corrected by their parents language acquisition different from first language
in a systematic way. Chomsky believes that humans acquisition. Second language acquisition or learning
are born with a special ability to learn languages is a guided and controlled conscious process (Ellis,
and that the basic structures of language are already 2012). Brown (2014) also agrees that L1 and L2 must
encoded in the human brain at birth. This ‘Universal be distinguished. He supports Critical Period Hypoth-
88
Journal of Policy Studies No.66 (March 2023)

esis that after the period of puberty, it is biologically seen in the process of L2 when teachers use simpli-
difficult to acquire a language, which makes second fied vocabulary or shorter sentences, especially at
language acquisition distinct from first language the beginner and elementary levels. Speaking slowly
acquisition. This explains why adults cannot fully and clearly using the vocabulary and sentences struc-
master native-like pronunciation in second language tures, which matches the levels of students, helps
learning; however, some linguists have found many them understand the language and is essential in L2
similarities between first and second language acqui- learning.
sition. This essay focuses only on the similarities of
first and second language acquisition and what can The next similarity between L1 and L2 is the learning
be applied to the second language learning classroom environment. Children typically acquire their mother
from first language acquisition. Terms L1 acquisition tongue in a fun and relaxing atmosphere. They
and L2 acquisition / learning are used as they are encounter the language in their daily lives through
commonly used in Language Teaching Literature. playing, exploring, and communicating with their
parents or care givers. They are rarely under stress
According to Ipek (2009), both L1 and L2 learners when acquiring the language; rather, they discover
follow a very similar pattern of development. Simi- the fun side of being able to communicate and play
larly, Ellis (1995) proposes three development stages with it. In addition, children are constantly praised
that he believes are the same or similar for L1 and when they perform any sort of verbal production,
L2 acquisition: the silent period, formulaic speech, including babbling, which provides them with confi-
and structural semantic simplification. The silent dence and motivation; however, when adults learn a
period is a similar initial stage for both L1 and L2 second language, they are old enough to understand
acquisition. Children go through this period when the negative impacts and avoid taking risks, making
they listen to the language they are exposed to and mistakes, or embarrassing themselves in a class-
try to discover what language is. A similar stage room. This is typically true in the case of Japanese
can be observed in L2 acquisition when immediate students learning English. They are often anxious
production is not necessary from learners. Ellis about making mistakes in the classroom (Kitano,
believes that although the silent period is not obliga- 2010). Creating an environment where learners can
tory as the learners already know about a language, relax and be motivated is essential in L2 learning. A
it is still possible for L2 learners when immediate study conducted by Carrio-Pastor (2014) shows that
production is not required from them. Formulaic motivation is a contributing factor in successful L2
speech consists of expressions which are learnt as achievement. It is also suggested by Ipek (2009) that
unanalysable wholes and employed on particular providing a relaxing and comfortable environment is
occasions. These are example memorized chunks “I important to bring positive attitudes to the language
don’t know”, utterances that have one or more open and learning process. Promoting a relationship
slots “Can I have a ___?” or greetings. Formulaic between a student and a teacher similar to that of a
speech can be observed in the speech of both L1 and parent and a child is crucial. One way to create this
L2 learners. In the third stage, L1 and L2 learners environment was suggested by the Bulgarian psychi-
apply structural and semantic simplifications to their atrist and educator Georgi Lozanov (1978), and his
language. Ellis (1995, pp. 82) states that ‘structural method of language teaching is called Suggestopedia.
simplification is evident in the omission of gram- This method pays special attention to the atmosphere
matical functors, such as auxiliary verbs, articles and in classrooms, such as furniture, decorations, layout,
bound morphemes, like plural – s and past tense -ed.’ and the use of music. Students take part in games,
Semantic omission involves the omission of content role play, singing and physical exercise, which helps
words—nouns, verbs, adjectives and adverbs— the adult learners regain the self-confidence, sponta-
which would normally occur in a native speaker’s neity, and receptivity of the child learners. Praise is
speech. It is also true that when talking to children, key to creating a relationship with students in which
adults use simplified, overemphasised language, they feel comfortable and confident in producing
sometimes called motherese, child directed speech or the language. Hawkins and Heflin (2011) claim that
baby talk (Fromkin, 2010). This simplification can be teacher praise can be a powerful motivation for
89
M.Lee, Exploring the Similarities of First and Second Language Acquisition

students in teaching second language. In both L1 and differences occur when comparing the L1 and L2 of
L2, the environment in which a language is learned adults based on the critical period theory. It remains
and a relationship between learners and teachers (or controversial whether L1 and L2 are acquired in the
parents in the case of L1) are extremely important. same or a different way. Cook (2010) believes that
the two processes are quite different that it may not
Researchers often agree that L1 and L2 are distin- be a proper question to ask whether L2 acquisition
guishable in that learners already have knowledge is similar to that of L1. Instead of differentiating the
about their first language, which to some extent two completely, it is wise to learn from the process
interferes during the process of L2 learning. Their of L1 and to use the positive findings in teaching a
native language could either support or hinder the second language. For example, it is often true that
process of learning a second language. In particular, children are not corrected by their parents when
errors made during the process of L2 learning are they make mistakes in language; rather, they are
often caused by the rules and structure of the mother given a correct model by their parents without being
tongue. Mace-Matluck (1979) claims that learners’ corrected:
errors are clearly based on interlingual consider- Child: It fall. Mother: It fell? (Fromkin, 2010)
ations; however, in the case of children acquiring Recasting is often randomly used by parents, which
L2, their error making process is highly similar to is how children learn the correct grammar. It is
how children acquire their first language (Burt & suggested by some linguists, such as Long (2006),
Dulay 1979). Burt, et al. (1974) conducted a study to that recasts can be significantly beneficial in second
analyse error making in L2 acquisition. The aim of language learning.
the study was to determine whether language errors Second language teachers can learn from how the
made during L2 acquisition are attributed to their first language is acquired and can apply useful
native language. The errors were categorised into methods of learning to L2 teaching for a successful
three types: developmental, interference and unique experience.
errors. The results showed that most L2 errors are
developmental errors, which are the same error
types as those committed by LI learners. Burt, et al.
(1974) classified the majority of L2 learners’ errors Bibliography
as developmental. Indeed, they found that very few Brown, H. D. (2014). Principles of Language Learning and
errors are directly attributable to LI interference, Teaching: Pearson Education. Person
Carrio-Pastor M., Mestre E. (2004) M. Motivation in
which suggests that L2 learners are as creative as
Second Language Acquisition. Procedia- Social and
their L1 counterparts. Furthermore, Ervin-Tripp (1974)
Behavioral Sciences,116 240-244. https://doi.org/10.1016/
noted that due to the similarity of LI and L2 errors, j.sbspro.2014.01.201
LI interference does not seem to be the cause of L2 Cook, V., Newson, M. (2014). Chomsky's Universal Grammar: An
errors. Thus, errors children make while learning Introduction.: Wiley-India.
certain structures of English as a second language Cook, V. (2010). The Relationship between First and Second
are similar to those made by children learning Language Learning The Continuum Companion to Second
English natively (Burt, et al., 1974). Language Acquisition, Continuum, 137-157, 2010 The
relationship between first and second language acquisition
(viviancook.uk)
As mentioned, there is plenty of research that
Clahsen, H., & Muysken, P. (1989). The UG paradox in L2
suggests that L1 and L2 acquisition have many acquisition. Second Language Research, 5 (1), 1–29. http://
similar features. Both go through similar stages www.jstor.org/stable/43104388
of development, ref lect er ror-making patter ns Dulay, H. C., & Burt, M. K. (1974). Errors and Strategies in Child
and require a suitable environment to acquire the Second Language Acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 8(2),
language. 129–136. https://doi.org/10.2307/3585536
Considering the critical theory hypothesis and Dörnyei, Z. (1997). Psychological Processes in Cooperative
Language Learning: Group Dynamics and Motivation. The
the error-making patterns, it is perhaps wise to
Modern Language Journal, 81(4), 482–493. https://doi.
conclude that L1 and L2 share similarities in rela-
org/10.2307/328891
tion to children’s L1 and L2 development, but many
90
Journal of Policy Studies No.66 (March 2023)

Ellis, R. (1995) Second Language Acquisition and Language

Pedagogy, Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters.
Ellis R. (2012) Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Ervin-Tripp, S. M. (1974). Is Second Language Learning like
the First. TESOL Quarterly, 8(2), 111–127. https://doi.
org/10.2307/3585535
Fromkin, V. R. (2010) An Introduction to Language, Boston:
Cengage
Hawkins, S. M., & Heflin, L. J. (2011). Increasing Secondary
Teachers’ Behavior-Specific Praise Using a Video Self-
Modeling and Visual Performance Feedback Intervention.
Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 13(2), 97–108.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300709358110
Ipek, H. (2009). Comparing and Contrasting First and Second
Language Acquisition: Implications for Language Teachers.
English Language Teaching, 2(2), 155-163. https://files.eric.
ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1082388.pd
Kitano. K. (2002) Anxiety in the College Japanese Language
Classroom: The Modern Language Journal, 85 (4), 549-566.
https://doi.org/10.1111/0026-7902.00125.
Krashen, S. (1983) Second Language Acquisition and Second
Language Learning, Exeter.
Lightbown, P. (2004) How Language Is Learned, Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Long, M.(2006) Recasts in SLA: The Story So Far. Problems in
SLA, Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum,
Lozanov, G. (1978). Suggestology and outlines of suggestopedy.
New York: Gordon and Breach.
Mace-Matluck, B. J. (1979). Order of Acquisition: Same or
Different in First- and Second-Language Learning? The
Reading Teacher, 32(6), 696–703. http://www.jstor.org/
stable/20194855