First and second language acquisition in children

Noting the importance of linguistic communication acquisition for kids ‘s physical, societal, in add-on, cognitive development, this paper discusses first- and second-language acquisition in kids. After supplying background on second-language acquisition, the paper discusses the contention environing bilingual instruction plans. The paper so explores what is known about linguistic communication acquisition, observing that in both first- and second- linguistic communication acquisition, a stimulating and rich lingual environment will back up linguistic communication development. The paper concludes with a treatment of factors that contribute to pupils ‘ academic success, including utilizing pupils ‘ first linguistic communication to supply academic direction for every bit long as possible and utilizing an active find attack to learning and acquisition.

Language is inextricably entwined with our mental life our perceiving, our memory, our attention, our comprehending, and our thought in short, all of our efforts to do sense of our experience in the universe. ( Lindfors, 1991, p. 8 )

We will write a custom essay sample on
First and second language acquisition in children
or any similar topic only for you
Order now

Although there are many differences in parent-child interaction forms around the universe, virtually all usually developing kids become linguistic communication users at the same rate. The manner kids learn linguistic communication follows a specific form and is inherently systemic in nature. It is clear that kids must be exposed to linguistic communication and be able to interact with others, but how that exposure and interaction occur are highly variable. Even though immature kids are non officially taught linguistic communication, linguistic communication acquisition is portion of the overall development of kids physically, socially, and cognitively. There is strong grounds that kids may ne’er get a linguistic communication if they have non been exposed to a linguistic communication before they reach the age of 6 or 7. Children between the ages of two and six get linguistic communication so quickly that by six they are competent linguistic communication users. By the clip kids are of school age, they have astonishing linguistic communication ability ; it is a apparently effortless acquisition ( Cole & A ; Cole, 1993 ; Curtiss, 1977 ; Goldin-Meadow, 1982 ; Lindfors, 1991 ; McLaughlin, 1984 ; Newport, 1991 ) .

There remains a great trade that we do non cognize about linguistic communication development in kids. A kid ‘s linguistic communication is invariably developing and altering. Children are actively prosecuting in communicating as they are larning to pass on. The kid is the active party in the language-learning procedure and in the procedure of doing sense of linguistic communication. His experience and interaction with others give him the background to associate linguistic communication to the sound/meaning relationship and to the intent it represents. Children of course obtain a communicative competency, per se understand the regulations of grammar, and addition cognition of the regulations of utilizing linguistic communication. Linguistic construction comes through the kid ‘s ain cognitive and societal activity. Although there is great fluctuation between single kids and the rate of their linguistic communication acquisition, there is small fluctuation in the form of development between linguistic communications.

One linguistic communication is non more hard than another, as we can set up by detecting the easiness with which kids get different linguistic communications by the same age. Virtually every kid develops lingual and communicative competency and it is learned of course and in context, non arranged in an easy-to-difficult sequence. The fact that both kids and grownups invariably communicate with a high grade of success is grounds that we are all following the same regulations for appropriate communicating behaviour ( Lindfors, 1991 ; McLaughlin, 1984 ) . Patton Tabors asks pedagogues to believe of linguistic communication as a mystifier with all of the pieces necessitating to come together for linguistic communication to truly work. These pieces of the mystifier are phonemics, vocabulary, grammar, discourse, and pragmatics ( Tabors, 1997 ) . Language is besides an of import manner for us to do sense out of our past experience, to larn from it, and to do it comprehendible. In the beginning, kids ‘s linguistic communication growing comes from their direct experience. It is personal and related to the present. As their linguistic communication, understanding grows, kids can associate to of all time more expanding state of affairss. This early linguistic communication experience is necessary to be able to utilize linguistic communication symbols apart from existent state of affairss.

Children usage linguistic communication metaphorically, supplying grounds that for kids linguistic communication is originative every bit good as imitative. For kids, linguistic communication is a powerful tool for understanding the universe around them. By oppugning, kids become active in their effort to comprehend and learn ( Lindfors, 1991 ; Winner, McCarthy, Kleinman, & A ; Gardner, 1979 ) .

Childs are invariably modifying their address depending on their audience. An illustration of this behaviour is when kids modify their address when speaking to younger kids. As kids develop their ability to utilize linguistic communication, they become more and more apprehension of societal state of affairss and larn how to command their ain actions and ideas. By listening to kids ‘s self-corrections, inquiries, and linguistic communication drama, we realize the extent of their cognition of linguistic communication construction. Those things that kids can articulate give us an apprehension of what they can grok. Their active, originative innovation of linguistic communication is astonishing and alone to each kid. Language development is a gradual procedure and reflects a kid ‘s cognitive capacities. Language is purposeful.

As kids play and work, they do so through linguistic communication ( Garcia, 1994 ; Lindfors, 1991 ; McLaughlin, 1984 ; Shatz & A ; Gelman, 1973 ) .

Children expand their development of linguistic communication by associating what they already know to what they encounter. It is merely with one pes placed forthrightly, firmly within the known, the familiar, that the kid can put the other pes in the beyond ( Lindfors, 1991, p. 282 ) .

Play is a manner for kids to widen their linguistic communication abilities ; it is where new vocabulary can be introduced every bit good as new ways to utilize it. It besides allows kids chances to show their point of position, solve dissensions, and persuade equals to work together. Language drama has a focal point on the really linguistic communication elements that kids will necessitate to see subsequently when they learn about linguistic communication. Language is a major agencies of act uponing thought and behaviour that of another individual or 1s own. For linguistic communication to spread out, kids need to be given many chances to interact. Children learn from talking. Children need to experience socially competent and accepted to go competent linguistic communication users. Language is the manner kids are socialized by grownups and the manner kids learn to steer their interior voice. The cardinal function of linguistic communication is the manner we communicate with

other people and with ourselves ( Berk & A ; Winsler, 1995 ; California Department of Education, 1988 ; Lindfors, 1991 ; Tabors, 1997 ) . In the mean kid, at whatever developmental phase we observe, linguistic communication is alive and good. Children ‘s linguistic communication development is a originative procedure that merely needs a rich environment to boom ( Lindfors, 1991 ) . Because Vygotsky regarded linguistic communication as a critical span between the sociocultural universe and single mental operation, he viewed the acquisition of

linguistic communication as the most important milepost in kids ‘s cognitive development ( Berk & A ; Winsler, 1995, p. 12 ) . Put another manner, linguistic communication is the verbal manner we express our apprehension of the universe ( Piaget, 1926, 1983 ) .

Background on Second-Language Acquisition

Most kids in the universe learn to talk two linguistic communications. Bilingualism is present in merely about every state around the universe, in all categories of society, and in all age groups ( Grosjean, 1982 ; McLaughlin, 1984 ) . In the United States, monolingualism traditionally has been the norm. Bilingualism was regarded as a societal stigma and liability ( McLaughlin, 1984, p. 3 ) . Language represents civilization, and the bilingual individual is frequently a member of a minority group whose manner of thought and whose values are unfamiliar to the bulk. Language is something we can place and seek to eliminate without demoing our misgiving and fright of others ( McLaughlin, 1984 ) . Even strong protagonists of bilingual instruction such as Cummins ( 1981, 1996 ) do non claim that bilingual instruction is the most of import component in a kid ‘s instruction. In Cummins position, it is more approximately good plans and about the position of the linguistic communication group in their community that will find success ( Cummins, 1981, 1996 ) .

There are no negative effects for kids who are bilingual. Their linguistic communication development follows the same form as that of monolingual kids ( Goodz, 1994 ) . Children who develop proficiency in utilizing their native linguistic communication to pass on, to derive information, to work out jobs and to believe can easy larn to utilize a 2nd linguistic communication in similar ways ( Perez & A ; Torres-Guzman, 1996, p. 96 ) . Even immature kids who are larning a 2nd linguistic communication conveying all of the cognition about linguistic communication larning they have acquired through developing their first linguistic communication. For these kids, so, second-language acquisition is non a procedure of detecting what linguistic communication is, but instead of detecting what this linguistic communication is ( Tabors, 1997, p. 12 ) .

There is, nevertheless, much more fluctuation in how good and how rapidly persons get a 2nd linguistic communication. There is no grounds that there are any biological bounds to second-language acquisition or that kids needfully have an advantage over grownups. Even those who begin to larn a 2nd linguistic communication in childhood may ever hold trouble with pronunciation, regulations of grammar, and vocabulary, and they may ne’er wholly master the signifiers or utilizations of the linguistic communication. There is no simple manner to explicate why some people are successful at second-language acquisition and some are non. Social and educational variables, experiential factors, and single differences in attitude, personality, age, and motive all affect linguistic communication acquisition ( Bialystok & A ; Hakuta, 1994 ; McLaughlin, 1984 ; Wong Fillmore, 1991a ; Tabors, 1997 ) .

McLaughlin notes that ultimate keeping of two linguistic communications depends on a big figure of factors, such as the prestigiousness of the linguistic communications, cultural force per unit areas, motive, and chances of usage but non on age of acquisition ( McLaughlin, 1984, p. 73 ) . It should non be surprising that bilingual kids frequently have one country of linguistic communication acquisition that is non equal between the two linguistic communications. It does non go on really frequently that both linguistic communications will be every bit balanced. The society that kids find themselves in and how of import each linguistic communication is viewed within that society are really of import. Children will merely go on to utilize two linguistic communications if making so is perceived to be valuable. As kids go through school, they normally lose much of their ability in their native linguistic communication. Children bring their attitudes toward a 2nd linguistic communication and those who speak it every bit good as their attitude toward their first linguistic communication.

These attitudes are of import to the success of the kid larning a 2nd linguistic communication and retaining his or her linguistic communication ( Collier, 1995b ; Lindfors, 1991 ) . Young kids may look to be better second-language users because the linguistic communication they are larning is less cognitively complex to larn and they can larn to talk a 2nd linguistic communication rapidly and frequently with a native-like pronunciation. But research has shown that striplings and immature grownups are really better at geting a 2nd linguistic communication ( Collier, 1995b ) . Children do look to bury linguistic communications more rapidly than grownups, which can ensue in negative cognitive effects ( for illustration, if they lose their first linguistic communication and, therefore, the ability to pass on with other household members who may go on to talk merely the first linguistic communication ) ( Cummins, 1976, 1977, 1979 ; McLaughlin, 1984 ; Wong Fillmore, 1991a ) .

There is some idea that kids who may look to be larning a 2nd linguistic communication really rapidly at a really immature age ( before the age of 5 ) , accompanied by the loss of their first linguistic communication, have truly replaced the first linguistic communication with the 2nd linguistic communication ( Bialystok & A ; Hakuta, 1994 ) . Many research workers believe that there is small benefit and possible injury in presenting a 2nd linguistic communication at a really immature age unless health professionals are careful to keep both linguistic communications as every bit of import and valuable ( McLaughlin, 1984 ) . Although linguistic communications and the manner different civilizations expose their kids to linguistic communication vary, the result of first-language acquisition is clear.

Almost all kids become fluent in their first linguistic communication. This sort of warrant is non automatic with the acquisition of a 2nd linguistic communication. Second-language acquisition is as complex as the acquisition of the first linguistic communication but with a broad assortment of variables added in. An interesting metaphor that Bialystok and Hakuta ( 1994 ) usage is comparing the add-on of a 2nd linguistic communication to place redevelopment vs. new building. Peoples have the ability to larn linguistic communications throughout their life-time. How good they may be able to larn other linguistic communications ( after the first ) depends on many variables. The same schemes used for first-language acquisition are used for subsequent linguistic communication acquisition ( Bialystok & A ;

Hakuta, 1994 ; Collier, 1995a ; Lindfors, 1991 ) . This individualism in respect to the acquisition of a 2nd linguistic communication is portion of the contention environing bilingual instruction. Should plans back up true bilingualism, a transitional plan that merely supports the native linguistic communication until kids have learned adequate English to be taught in an English-only environment, or should every attempt from the really get downing be an submergence in English. Confusion of ends care versus passage has contributed much to the contention twirling about bilingual instruction ( Hakuta, 1986, p. 193 ) .

From the really beginning, Americans have wrestled with their feelings toward other civilizations and linguistic communications. At hazard is the definition of what it means to be an American. Many believe that bilingual plans do non promote kids to larn English but merely give them an chance to utilize their native linguistic communication. There is besides a strong belief that immature kids get linguistic communications easy, even 2nd linguistic communications, so if they are in English-only schoolrooms they will larn English ( Hakuta, 1986 ) . Secretary of Education Richard Riley ‘s end of holding every English-language scholar proficient in English in

three old ages represents the thought of many politicians and pedagogues. To their manner of thought, there is no ground why this end can non be accomplished, and English linguistic communication scholars have spent excessively much clip in native-language direction ( Gersten, 1999 ) .

What We Know about Language Learning In both first- and second-language acquisition, a stimulating and rich lingual environment will back up linguistic communication development. How frequently and how good parents communicate with their kids is a strong forecaster of how rapidly kids expand their linguistic communication acquisition. Encouraging kids to show their demands, thoughts, and feelings whether in one linguistic communication or two enriches kids linguistically and cognitively. Prosecuting the kids and promoting them to show themselves interactively while constructing on their anterior cognition in real-life state of affairss is an effectual manner to construct linguistic communication experience ( Cuevas, 1996 ; McLaughlin, 1984 ) . Young kids will go bilingual when there is existent demands to pass on in two linguistic communications and will merely as rapidly return back to monolingualism when there is no longer a demand.

If kids ‘s interactions outside the place are in merely one linguistic communication, they may rapidly exchange over to that linguistic communication and may merely hold a receptive apprehension of their first linguistic communication. This procedure may happen even more quickly when there is more than one kid in the household. Children are non normally every bit adept in both linguistic communications. They may utilize one linguistic communication with parents and another with their equals or at school. At the same clip kids are geting new vocabulary and apprehension of the usage of linguistic communication, it may look that they are falling behind in linguistic communication acquisition ; nevertheless, it is normal for there to be moving ridges of linguistic communication acquisition.

Overall, continued first-language development is related to superior scholastic accomplishment. When kids do non hold many chances to utilize linguistic communication and have non been provided with a rich experiential base, they may non larn to work good in their 2nd linguistic communication, and at the same clip, they may non go on to develop their first linguistic communication. This phenomenon occurs whether kids are monolingual or bilingual with the consequence that their linguistic communication degree is non appropriate for their age. Language acquisition is non additive, and formal instruction does non rush up the acquisition procedure. Language acquisition is dynamic linguistic communication must be meaningful and used ( Collier, 1995a ; Grosjean, 1982 ; Krashen, 1996 ; McLaughlin, 1984 ) .

Tabor states that immature kids, so, surely seem to understand that larning a 2nd linguistic communication is a cognitively ambitious and time-consuming activity. Bing exposed to a 2nd linguistic communication is evidently non plenty ; desiring to pass on with people who speak that linguistic communication is important if acquisition is to happen. Children who are in a second-language larning state of affairs has to be sufficiently motivated to get down larning a new linguistic communication ( Tabors, 1997, p. 81 ) . There is existent concern that if kids do non to the full get their first linguistic communication, they may hold trouble subsequently in going to the full literate and academically proficient in the 2nd linguistic communication ( Collier, 1992, 1995a ; Collier & A ; Thomas, 1989 ; Cummins, 1981, 1991 ; Collier & A ; Thomas, 1995 ) .

The synergistic relationship between linguistic communication and cognitive growing is of import. Continuing and beef uping the place linguistic communication supports the continuity of cognitive growing. Cognitive development will non be interrupted when kids and parents use the linguistic communication they know best. Experience and thoughts must be familiar and meaningful to the kid to be learned. Everything acquired in the first linguistic communication ( academic accomplishments, literacy development, construct formation, capable cognition, and larning schemes ) will reassign to the 2nd linguistic communication. As kids are larning the 2nd linguistic communication, they are pulling on the background and experience they have available to them from their first linguistic communication.

Collier believes that the accomplishments kids develop in their first linguistic communication organize the foundation they must hold to be academically successful in their 2nd linguistic communication. Children who are literate in their first linguistic communication may experience cognitive troubles as they get a 2nd linguistic communication. Literacy non merely transportations across linguistic communications, it facilitates larning to read in another linguistic communication even when the linguistic communication and composing system look to be really different. Reading in all linguistic communications is done in the same manner and is acquired in the same manner.

The common lingual universals in all linguistic communications mean that kids who learn to read good in their first linguistic communication will likely read good in their 2nd linguistic communication. Reading in the primary linguistic communication is a powerful manner of go oning to develop literacy in that linguistic communication, and to make so, kids must hold entree to a print-rich environment in the primary linguistic communication ( Bialystok & A ; Hakuta, 1994 ; Collier, 1995a ; Cummins, 1981 ; Krashen, 1996 ; McLaughlin, 1984 ; Perez & A ; Torres-Guzman, 1996 ) . When we learn a new linguistic communication, we are non merely larning new vocabulary and grammar ; we are besides larning new ways of forming constructs, new ways of thought, and new ways of larning linguistic communication. Knowing two linguistic communications is much more than merely cognizing two ways of speech production ( Bialystok & A ; Hakuta, 1994, p. 122 ) .

When kids learn all new information and accomplishments in English, their first linguistic communication becomes dead and does non maintain gait with their new cognition. This may take to limited bilingualism, where kids ne’er become genuinely adept in either their first or 2nd linguistic communication. Supporting merely English besides gives kids the feeling that different linguistic communications and civilizations are non valued. On cognitive and academic steps, kids who have lost their first linguistic communication ( alleged subtractive bilinguals ) do non hit every bit good as kids who have maintained or expanded their first linguistic communication as they get the 2nd linguistic communication ( linear bilinguals ) ( Collier, 1992 ; Ramsey, 1987 ; Saville-Troike, 1982 ) .

When the first linguistic communication continues to be supported ( and this support is particularly of import when the first linguistic communication is non the power linguistic communication outside the place ) , presenting a 2nd linguistic communication between the ages of 5 and 11 will guarantee full cognitive growing in the first linguistic communication, which will back up full cognitive growing in the 2nd linguistic communication ( Collier, 1995b ) . The scholars ‘ societal accomplishments and manners are besides of import to linguistic communication acquisition. Children who are of course societal and communicative seek out chances to prosecute others. If these kids are given tonss of chance to interact positively with others who speak the mark linguistic communication, their linguistic communication acquisition is promoted. Personality, societal competency, motive, attitudes, larning manner, and societal manner in both scholars and talkers influence the manner a kid learns the 2nd linguistic communication. With the assortment of plans available to kids, these elements become variables that are hard to factor in and whose consequence is hard to foretell ( Lindfors, 1991 ; Wong Fillmore, 1991a ; Wong Fillmore, 1991b ) .

Successful Programs Collier and Thomas have been roll uping informations about linguistic communication minority pupil accomplishment across five plan theoretical accounts from a series of three- to six-year longitudinal surveies from well-implemented plans in five school territories. They have found that, among the variables, these plans had three constituents in common that predicted academic success. Collier and Thomas found that these constituents were more of import than either the specific plan type or the pupil background variables.

These three constituents were ( 1 ) utilizing the pupils ‘ first linguistic communication to supply academic direction for every bit long as possible, ( 2 ) utilizing an active find attack to learning and acquisition, and ( 3 ) handling the bilingual plans as talented plans so that the relationship between minority and bulk pupils changed to a positive environment for all. Within these constituents runs the cardinal yarn of doing certain that direction is ever cognitively ambitious and complex ( Collier & A ; Thomas, 1995 ) . Collier and Thomas have developed a conceptual theoretical account for geting a 2nd linguistic communication at school that has sociocultural, lingual, academic, and cognitive procedures as the chief constituents. They feel that second-language acquisition demands to be looked at as the really complex interdependent larning it is.

There is an tremendous difference between the clip it takes for a second-language scholar to obtain unwritten eloquence or societal linguistic communication and academic linguistic communication. It may take merely a short clip for unwritten eloquence, but it may take from seven to ten old ages to go academically fluid while the English merely pupil is come oning every bit good ( Collier, 1995a ) . Developing proficiency in academic linguistic communication therefore means catching up and maintaining up with native talkers, for eventual successful academic public presentation at secondary and university degrees of direction a monumental accomplishment ( Collier & A ; Thomas, 1989 ) . In bilingual plans, pupils ‘ whether they are linguistic communication minority pupils or non go on to construct their cognitive and academic growing in their native linguistic communication while they are geting the 2nd linguistic communication. Many surveies have found that cognitive development and academic development in the first linguistic communication have an highly of import and positive consequence on second-language schooling ( e.g. , Bialystok & A ; Hakuta, 1994 ; Collier & A ; Thomas, 1989, 1995 ; Garcia, 1994 ) .

The large difference in believing about best plans for kids is to swear that kids bring so much to school and have so much to offer. They need chances and experiences to turn and to hold more to associate their anterior cognition to. Programs need to be extremely synergistic and child centered instead than teacher centered. Children need to hold the chance to work out jobs and detect the universe around them. Childs who are in a child-centered environment where find acquisition is the instructional method will be prepared to cognize how to acquire entree to new cognition and how to use, measure, and work out jobs as new information becomes available. Active larning utilizing constructivist and whole linguistic communication approaches uses meaningful activities and kids ‘s anterior cognition, experiences, and perceptual experiences to construct existent cognition ( Collier, 1995b ; Cuevas, 1996 ) .

Effective plans know that support for linguistic communication acquisition and interaction is cardinal to kids ‘s growing. Language is a good illustration of an country in which kids come to preschool with a great trade to offer. Teachers need to larn to acknowledge how much linguistic communication kids have and how to promote its usage and growing through meaningful conversations. The manner kids perceive, retrieve, grok, and do sense of their universe is all tied up in linguistic communication. Preschool plans can supply many chances to interact with equals and new grownups and meet a assortment of new thoughts. Through the kid ‘s ain talk and interactions with others, their ain thoughts take form and they have the chance to research what other people are believing and travel beyond their ain personal experience. It is in kids ‘s usage of explorative linguistic communication the linguistic communication of inquiring, their questioning, their conjecturing, their sing, their imagining that we are on occasion able to glimpse through Windowss into our kids ‘s idea ( Lindfors, 1991, pp. 8, 9 ) .

×

Hi there, would you like to get such a paper? How about receiving a customized one? Check it out