COURSE MODULE Don Carlos Polytechnic College

Module weeks 1 and 2

Poblacion Norte, Don Carlos, Bukidnon

College of Education
ELT 1: Principles and theories of Language Acquisition of Learning
Semester of A.Y. 2020-2021

Introduction

This module will explore the vast principles and theories of language acquisition of learning and
be able to provide students’ basic understanding about language acquisition as a bedrock in
grasping all detailed concepts about the course.

Intended Learning Outcomes

A. Understand the different concepts of child language, acquisition, bi/multilingualism and

second language acquisition.
B. Describe the Multilingual Language Acquisition.

Activity

Brief Lecture: with the aid of a powerpoint with narration

Panel discussion via zoom on the topics

Discussion

Language acquisition is a process which can take place at any period of one's life. In the
sense of first language acquisition, however, it refers to the acquisition (unconscious learning) of
one's native language (or languages in the case of bilinguals) during the first 6 or 7 years of one's life
(roughly from birth to the time one starts school).

Characteristics of first language acquisition

1) It is an instinct. This is true in the technical sense, i.e. it is triggered by birth and takes its own
course, though of course linguistic input from the environment is needed for the child to acquire a
specific language. As an instinct, language acquisition can be compared to the acquisition of
binocular vision or binaural hearing.

2) It is very rapid. The amount of time required to acquire one's native language is quite short, very

1|Page
COURSE MODULE Module weeks 1 and 2

short compared to that needed to learn a second language successfully later on in life.

3) It is very complete. The quality of first language acquisition is far better than that of a second
language (learned later on in life). One does not forget one's native language (though one might have
slight difficulties remembering words if you do not use it for a long time).

4) It does not require instruction. Despite the fact that many non-linguists think that mothers are
important for children to learn their native language, instructions by parents or care-takers are
unnecessary, despite the psychological benefits of attention to the child.

What is the watershed separating first and second language acquisition?

Generally, the ability to acquire a language with native speaker competence diminishes severly
around puberty. There are two suggestions as to why this is the case. 1) Shortly before puberty the
lateralisation of the brain (fixing of various functions to parts of the brain) takes place and this may
lead to general inflexibility. 2) With puberty various hormonal changes take place in the body (and
we technically become adults). This may also lead to a inflexibility which means that language
acquisition cannot proceed to the conclusion it reaches in early childhood.

Acquisition is carried out in the first years of childhood and leads to unconscious knowledge of one's
native language which is practically indelible. Note that acquisition has nothing to do with
intelligence, i.e. children of different degrees of intelligence all go through the same process of
acquiring their native language.
Learning (of a second language) is done later (after puberty) and is characterised by imperfection and
the likelihood of being forgotten. Learning leads to conscious knowledge.

FIRST LANGUAGE ACQUISITION This is the acquisition of the mother tongue. Chronology is
important here (see below). The degree of competence acquired may vary from individual to
individual and may be checked by later switching to another language. Note that language
acquisition is largely independent of intelligence, although individuals can and do differ in their
mastery of open classes such as vocabulary.

BI- AND MULTILINGUALISM This is the acquisition of two or more languages from birth or at
least together in early childhood. The ideal situation where all languages are equally represented in
the child's surroundings and where the child has an impartial relationship to each is hardly to be
found in reality so that of two or more languages one is bound to be dominant.

SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION This is the acquisition of a second language after the
mother tongue has been (largely) acquired. Usually refers to acquisition which begins after puberty,
i.e. typically adult language acquisition. Sometimes replaced by the term further language
acquisition.

ERROR This is an incorrect feature in language acquisition which occurs because of the stage at
which the child is at a given time (acquisition in as yet incomplete). Errors are regular and easily
explainable. For instance the use of weak verb forms for strong ones or the overapplication of the s-
plural to all nouns in English would be examples of errors. Such features tend to right themselves

2|Page
COURSE MODULE Module weeks 1 and 2

with time when the child appreciates that many word classes contain a degree of irregularity.

MISTAKE Here one is dealing with a random, non-systematic and usually unpredictable
phenomenon in second language learning. Mistakes are sometimes termed 'performance errors' to
emphasise that they arise on the spur of the moment when speaking and are not indicative of any
acquisitional stage.

COMPETENCE is the abstract ability to speak a language, i.e. knowledge of a language independent
of its use.

PERFORMANCE is actual use of language. Its features do not necessarily reflect characteristics of
performance, for example, when one is nervous, tired, drunk one may have difficulties speaking
coherently. This, however, does not mean that one cannot speak one's native language.

For the discussion on bilingual development, please open these links:

[Link]

[Link]
r_two

THE ROLE OF AGE

It is commonly known that children with regular faculties and given normal circumstances easily
master their native language (L1). Unfortunately, perfect language mastery is rarely the result of second
language acquisition (henceforth SLA). One of the central questions that SLA has tried to answer since its
establishment as an independent field of study within applied linguistics is why learners of a non-native
language (L2) evince such a high degree of interindividual variation in their final attainment relative to
the L2 components and skills they have acquired. In order to offer a satisfactory response to this key
issue, SLA researchers have posited the existence of a set of individual factors of a very different nature,
such as aptitude, motivation, attitude, personality, and intelligence, among others, that might explain such
variation. However, one of the most obvious potential explanations for the lack of success of L2 learners
compared to L1 learners is that the acquisition of a foreign language begins at a later age than that of the
mother tongue does (cf. Larsen-Freeman / Long: 153). Thus, it has been prevalently assumed that age
itself is a predictor of second language proficiency. The influence of age is actually assessed to be not
only significant but even decisive on the degree of L2 competence and performance attained (cf. Abello-
Contesse et al.: 7).

If age indeed is a factor which determines upon the success in SLA – is there an optimal age to start
learning a foreign language? It is often claimed that children are superior to adults, that is, that the
younger the learner of a foreign language, the more effective the learning process and the better the
outcome obtained. This assumption often derives from a distinctive element in the study of the age
factor, the so-called critical period hypothesis (henceforth CPH), predicting that if the acquisition of
a foreign language starts between the age of 2 and 12-13 (i.e., puberty), the process will be
straightforward and the product will be complete (which is usually claimed to be the case in the
acquisition of the L1), while individuals who begin their learning after this point – a kind of
biological border – will find the process considerably difficult and the final outcome will be

3|Page
COURSE MODULE Module weeks 1 and 2

incomplete. Even though the CPH constitutes a strong and recurrent research line within the SLA, at
the same time it is a changing and controversial area in practice since it tends to generate antagonistic
positions among the SLA researchers. Thus, there exist also studies which dispute the assumption
that children are superior to adults in learning a foreign language and maintain the exact contrary.
Likewise, the explanations for the critical period as well as their empirical foundations have been
questioned by different researchers (e.g., Krashen; Long). Is there indeed evidence for a critical
period in SLA? Are there really age-related differences between young children, older children, and
adults? And does the age of onset constitute a source of personal variation that is powerful enough to
account for the varying levels of achievement that learners eventually reach? Since educators are
interested in knowing what the best time is to start their instructions and how far older students can
progress, the age factor is not only of great significance for SLA theory but also for language
teaching practice. An important question which arises in this context is whether there is sufficient
conceptual and empirical reason to justify making educational decisions on the basis of SLA research
concerning the age factor. As is generally known, in Germany educational authorities decided to
reduce the onset age of the first foreign language from the fifth to the third grade of elementary
education. There are other countries as well which introduced the so-called “early start in L2
learning”[1]. Does this reform, consisting primarily or exclusively in lowering the age of onset of L2
learning, conform to the results of the SLA studies on the age factor?

This paper focuses on research which has been carried out on maturational constraints for SLA and
hereby tries to find answers to the here posed questions.

1. The Age Factor in Second Language Acquisition

Few aspects in first language or second language learning have engendered more controversy than
the age factor. Differences in interpretation are nothing new in any research area, of course. Here,
however, disagreements as to both the facts and their explanation are very pronounced. The views
range from the position that children are in all respects more efficient and effective second language
learners than adults to the complete contrary position that adolescents and adults are more efficient
and effective second language learners than children (cf. Singleton, 1995: 1f.). According to
Singleton, at least four divergent opinions among the SLA researchers can be listed: In the first
place, the ‘younger = better’ position, secondly, the straightforward counter-proposal, namely the
‘older = better’ position, thirdly, the ‘younger = better in some respects’ position, and fourthly, the
‘younger = better in the long run’ position. Among the wide range of studies, there is evidence
relevant to each of the four positions on age-related differences in second language learning
efficiency. In the course of this paper, several studies and opinions on the age factor in SLA will be
presented and discussed[2]. The further intention hereby is to ascertain whether one or more of the
positions can be excluded and, if at all possible, whether one view can be assessed as the most
evident or convincing.

2. The Critical Period Hypothesis

The original formulation of the CPH is based upon the work of the German-born American
neurologist Eric Lenneberg (1967). The hypothesis implies that children have a special innate
propensity for acquiring language that is determined by biological factors – so to speak a biological
clock that limits the period during which natural language acquisition can take place. This
assumption is based on the biological observation that the brain of a child is plastic whereas the brain

4|Page
COURSE MODULE Module weeks 1 and 2

of an adult is rigid and set. According to Lenneberg, during early childhood language appears to be
more spread out across both brain hemispheres, but as the child grows older and the two hemispheres
become increasingly specialised for certain functions, language gradually relocates, settling in the
left one. The CPH holds that primary language acquisition must occur during a critical period which
starts at about the age of 2 years and ends at puberty (around the age of 12 or 13) with the
establishment of lateralisation of the language function. Lenneberg argues that language acquisition
before the age of 2 is impossible because the brain has not developed the capacities it needs. After
puberty the natural acquisition of language is blocked because the brain has lost its cerebral
plasticity. Of course, Lenneberg does not deny that language learning is possible after puberty.
However, “automatic” acquisition from mere exposure to a second language seems to disappear:
“Most individuals of average intelligence are able to learn an L2 after the beginning of their second
decade, although the incidence of ‘language-learning blocks’ rapidly increases after puberty”
(Lenneberg: 176). Moreover, he notes that foreign accents cannot be overcome easily after the end of
the critical period. According to the neurosurgeon Penfield, an adult cannot learn a language as a
child does because the adult learns through structures that have lost their flexibility. The child, on the
other hand, can acquire one or more languages with ease because the corticothalamic speech
mechanism in the child is still in the process of development (cf. Penfield / Roberts, 1959, in
McLaughlin: 48).

Since its conception in the 1960s, the CPH has been closely linked to innatist claims which gave rise
to the well-known innatist theory of first language acquisition advocated by the theoretical linguist
Noam Chomsky, emphasizing the essential role that biological contributions, as opposed to the
child’s social life and cultural experience, appear to play in L1 development. Since children acquire
their native language by mere exposure with facility and an enormous speed, Chomsky maintains
that the only explanation possible is that children are pre-programmed to acquire language at a
definite point in their development. The well-known term he uses for this biological equipment is
the Universal Grammar. Apparently, the view that the child possesses a capacity for language that
the adult has lost has been formalized in the CPH.

According to Paul M. Chandler, there is compelling evidence that humans are biologically “wired” to
learn language optimally within a time frame (Chandler: 62). The well-known and tragic case of
Genie, who had been isolated from language until nearly the age of 14 and was not able to learn even
the rudiments of the computational system of a first language afterwards, has been assessed by many
linguists as support of the CPH. Michael H. Long notes that the data on Genie are consistent with the
“weak” version [3] of the CPH. The girl showed that language acquisition is possible starting after
puberty, but that learning will be irregular and incomplete (cf. Long: 257). There exist other similar
cases of feral children and child abuse, and all of them support the CPH – the children were able to
learn language after puberty, but their learning became more irregular and fell further short of native
levels of achievement the later it had begun (cf.: ibid).

Further support for the CPH comes from neurological investigations of unilateral brain- damaged
children and adults, who have lost their ability of language after accidents [4]. Whereas the children
were apparently able to transfer the speech function to the unharmed hemisphere and could thus
recapture their complete speech capability, the adults mostly remained speech disturbed. Lenneberg
saw this as evidence that children are less lateralised than adults and, vice versa, that adults are more
lateralised than children (cf. McLaughlin: 49).

5|Page
COURSE MODULE Module weeks 1 and 2

Concerning the mentioned cases of abused and feral children as well as brain-damaged individuals, it
must be beard in mind that they refer to the acquisition of the first language. Likewise, regarding the
origin of the CPH, we must not forget that Lenneberg’s conception of it was made outside of the
field of SLA. Its implications addressed the process of L1 acquisition by looking at the relearning of
impaired L1 skills by native speakers of English. Stork remarks in this context:

“Gegen die Methoden der neurolinguistischen Läsionsforschung wird heute häufig vorgebracht, dass
nicht geklärt ist, ob von den Beobachtungen ‘kranker’ Gehirne auf die Organisation ‘normaler’
Gehirne geschlossen werden kann. Läsionen können in Funktionsbereiche anderer Regionen dieser
Hemisphäre hineinwirken oder auch die Tätigkeit der anderen Gehirnhälfte beeinflussen.“ (Stork:
42).

Lenneberg focuses essentially on the limitations to non-normal primary language acquisition. Thus,
the CPH is not a neutral or independent hypothesis concerning its overall theoretical orientation, but
it comes from biology and refers to a limited phase within the development of an organism that turns
out to be meaningful or irreversible for the acquisition of a particular function (cf. Abello-Contesse
et al.: 15). Proceeding to the field of SLA – is there also evidence for the CPH?

3 Evidence for and against the Critical Period Hypothesis in Second Language Acquisition

3.1 THE ‘YOUNGER = BETTER’ POSITION

The position which derives most directly from the conception of the CPH posits quite simply that
younger second language learners are globally more efficient and successful than older learners, and
(in most versions) that puberty marks the onset of a decline in second language learning capacity.
This view has not only been a popular belief for centuries, there is also scientific evidence from
several studies conducted on the age factor.

One such study, carried out by Asher and García in 1969 and presented in their article “The Optimal
Age to Learn a Foreign Language”, is an experiment with 71 Cuban immigrants to California
ranging in age from 7 to 19 years, most of whom had been in the United States for about five years.
19 American high-school children, all native speakers, acted as judges of randomly ordered
recordings of the Cubans and of a control group of 30 native speakers uttering the same set of
English sentences, scoring them for fidelity of pronunciation on a four point scale, the extremes of
which were ‘native speaker’ and ‘definite foreign accent’.

The researchers found that not one of the 71 Cuban immigrants was judged to have native
pronunciation. However, many were assessed to speak with near-native pronunciation, and the
highest probability of being so judged occurred in relation to children who had entered the U.S.
between the ages of 1 and 6 years and had lived there over a period of between five and six years.
Moreover, the younger a child had been when entering the U.S., the higher the probability of a
native-like accent, this probability being further increased the longer the child had lived in the
country. For the test persons who were 13 or older, nobody who lived in the U.S. between 1 and 4
years had a near-native pronunciation, and only 17 % of these children who lived in the United States
between five and eight years had a near-native speech. From these results, Asher and García draw the
conclusion that some variable within child development is a powerful determinant of pronunciation
fidelity for second languages and that this variable may be biological. They suggest that

6|Page
COURSE MODULE Module weeks 1 and 2

pronunciation may be a learning based on copying. (cf. Asher / García: 341).

For the discussion on bilingualism and cognitive development, please open these links:

[Link]
%20limitations%20that,with%20better%20memory%2C%20visual%2Dspatial

[Link]

Exercise

Create a reflection employing CERA.

Assessment

Critical essay ( Rubrics will be provided in the Platform- Google Classroom)

Reflection

Why study Language Acquisition?

Why language acquisition varies in terms of age?
Resources and Additional Resources

(n.d.). Retrieved July 27, 2020, from [Link]

Jasmina Murad (Author), 2006, Age as a Factor in Second Language Acquisition, Munich,
GRIN Verlag, [Link]

Additional Resources:

Ortega, L. (2011) Second Language Acquisition. London: Routledge.

Susan M. (2008) Second Language Acquisition: An Introductory Course. New York: Routledge.

7|Page
COURSE MODULE Module weeks 1 and 2

Attachment 1

Rubrics for critical essay

8|Page
Fair Good Excellent
(N/A) (N/A) (N/A)
COURSE MODULE Module weeks 1 and 2

Opening Statement Fair Good Excellent

0-19 20-24 25-30

30 points maximum Opening Good Strong opening statement.
statement opening
lacked in statement. Topical and substantive
substance. arguments.
Some strong
Opening arguments Well organized and presented
statement presented. arguments.
lacked in
clarity. Needed High level of analytical rigor.
more
Opening organization.
statement
needed Needed a
significant higher level
increase in of analysis.
analytical
rigor. Needed
more
substance.
Clarity Fair Good Excellent

0-5 6-7 8-10

10 points Maximum Arguments Could have Excellent job in this area.
lacked better
clarity. clarified Clear and intelligible arguments.
your
Many points arguments Excellent clarification of your
were for the points within the discussion.
inconsistent. group.

Did not Some

effectively arguments
clarify were not
points/argum consistent.
ents during
the Good
discussion. clarification
of your
points during
the
discussion.
Argumentation/Style Fair Good Excellent

0-5 6-7 8-10

10
9 |points
P a g emaximum Need more Good job in Excellent job in this area.
engagement this area.
with the Persuasive argumentation.
larger Argumentati
COURSE MODULE Module weeks 1 and 2

Attachment 2

10 | P a g e
COURSE MODULE Reflection Evaluation Criteria (the rubric)
Module weeks 1 and 2

Example of one Type of Rubric for a paper

Criteria Superior (54-60 Sufficient (48-53 Minimal (1-47 Unacceptable (0

points) points) points) points)

Depth of Response Response Response Response

Reflection demonstrates an in- demonstrates a demonstrates a demonstrates a
depth reflection on, general reflection on, minimal lack of reflection
and personalization and personalization reflection on, and on, or
of, the theories, of, the theories, personalization personalization of,
(25% of concepts, and/or concepts, and/or of, the theories, the theories,
TTL Points) strategies presented strategies presented in concepts, and/or concepts, and/or
in the course the course materials strategies strategies
materials to date. to date. Viewpoints presented in the presented in the
Viewpoints and and interpretations are course materials course materials to
___/15 interpretations are supported. to date. date. Viewpoints
insightful and well Appropriate examples Viewpoints and and interpretations
supported. Clear, are provided, as interpretations are are missing,
detailed examples applicable. unsupported or inappropriate,
are provided, as supported with and/or
applicable. flawed unsupported.
arguments. Examples, when
Examples, when applicable, are not
applicable, are not provided.
provided or are
irrelevant to the
assignment.
Required Response includes Response includes all Response is Response excludes
Components all components and components and missing some essential
meets or exceeds all meets all components components and/or
requirements requirements and/or does not does not address
indicated in the indicated in the fully meet the the requirements
(25% of instructions. Each instructions. Each requirements indicated in the
TTL Points) question or part of question or part of the indicated in the instructions. Many
the assignment is assignment is instructions. parts of the
addressed addressed. All Some questions assignment are
thoroughly. All attachments and/or or parts of the addressed
___/15 attachments and/or additional documents assignment are minimally,
additional documents are included, as not addressed. inadequately,
are included, as required. Some attachments and/or not at all.
required. and additional
documents, if
required, are
missing or

11 | P a g e
COURSE MODULE Module weeks 1 and 2
unsuitable for the
purpose of the
assignment.
Structure Writing is clear, Writing is mostly Writing is unclear Writing is unclear
concise, and well clear, concise, and and/or and disorganized.
organized with well organized with disorganized. Thoughts ramble
excellent good Thoughts are not and make little
(25% of sentence/paragraph sentence/paragraph expressed in a sense. There are
TTL Points) construction. construction. logical manner. numerous spelling,
Thoughts are Thoughts are There are more grammar, or
expressed in a expressed in a than five spelling, syntax errors
coherent and logical coherent and logical grammar, or throughout the
___/15 manner. There are no manner. There are no syntax errors per response.
more than three more than five page of writing.
spelling, grammar, or spelling, grammar, or
syntax errors per syntax errors per page
page of writing. of writing.
Evidence Response shows Response shows Response shows Response shows
and Practice strong evidence of evidence of synthesis little evidence of no evidence of
synthesis of ideas of ideas presented and synthesis of ideas synthesis of ideas
presented and insights gained presented and presented and
insights gained throughout the entire insights gained insights gained
(25% of throughout the entire course. The throughout the throughout the
TTL Points) course. The implications of these entire course. Few entire course. No
implications of these insights for the implications of implications for
insights for the respondent's overall these insights for the respondent's
respondent's overall teaching practice are the respondent's overall teaching
___/15 teaching practice are presented, as overall teaching practice are
thoroughly detailed, applicable. practice are presented, as
as applicable. presented, as applicable.
applicable.

12 | P a g e