1

1.1 Introduction

A person without speech defects can converse well through the use of Language.
A child can say what he or she wants through the use also of a language. We have
come across the significance of language in our day to day living. Language as part of
our culture serves as a tool for effective communication. It enables us to express our
ideas as wells as it aids in the development of good relationships among others.

But concerning about how language is acquired is complex and it requires

thorough researches. I think most of us will ask “ how did you learn to talk?, What is
your first word? Or another question that would pertain to second language acquisition
is “ How come at the age of three you can already speak English other than Bisaya as
your mother-tongue? They say that Language acquisition is something that can often
be misunderstood or simplified and having this query bothers us a lot especially in the
aspects of Language teaching. Educators of language are wondering if second language
learner can learn second language effortlessly the same thing as they did their first
language.

1.2 Review of Related Literature

Moinzadeh A. et al. (2012) made a comparison between L1 and L2

Acquisition in terms of psychomotor, cognitive, affective, linguistic and neurological
variables. One aspect they talked about is the Neurological Changes, in other words –
the Critical Period hypothesis. We all know that Language is controlled in the left
hemisphere of the brain, thus Lenneberg (1967) believes that this process happens
gradually starting from the age of two and continue to the age of puberty. But the point
of Scovel (1969 is that due to the plasticity of the brain prior to puberty, a child can
learn a second language in addition to his/her mother tongue.

Another aspect is Acquisition or Learning Hypothesis. Language that occurs

through instruction and classrooms practices and the acquisition of the language which
is the way a child get the language, Krashen (1982). Though an adult can learn and
acquire a second language if he is put in the write setting, however according to what
Krashen says, learning cannot be turned to acquisition.
 2

The said researchers explained also the Physical Changes stating that the
psychomotor gives us the accent we have in our speech which include (throat, larynx,
mouth, lips, tongue, and other muscles). According to Brown (1994), the development
of the child’s speech muscles is a large contributing factor to the attainment of native-
like pronunciation

The Cognitive Changes of Piaget (1929), in Larsen freeman 1991), outlines the
cognitive development of a child based upon his age:

The sensorimotor stage from ages 0 to 2

The preoperational stage from ages 2 to 7
The operational stage from ages 7 to 16
The cognition develops faster up to age of 16 and then it gets slower.

The researchers also discussed the Affective Changes affirming that the
development of cognition in adult comes along with some affective obstacles on the
way of learning a second language. One of them is inhibition. A child is highly
egocentric, meaning his identity is highly flexible and pliable. As he grows up, he
becomes more and more aware of himself and develops a more solid self-identity and
after the age of puberty he tries to protect this identity. In case of language he
develops a language ego with reference to the language he learns, Brown (1994).

Another research concerning the L1 AND l2 Acquisition is of Ipek H. (2009).

His paper looked at the similarities between the L1 and L2 acquisition. Then, Many
characteristics of L2 acquisition were highlighted by studies conducted on the issue of
Interlanguage. Interlanguage theory was developed in the 1970s and 1980s to
emphasize the dynamic qualities of language change that make the Interlanguage a
unique system. Selinker (1969, cited in McLaughlin, 1987) defines Interlanguage as the
interim grammars constructed by second language learners on their way to the target
language. Interlanguage is the learner's developing second language knowledge and
has some characteristics of the learner's native language, of the second language, and
some characteristics which seem to be very general and tend to occur in all or most
Interlanguages. It is systematic, dynamic and constantly evolving.

This research speaks of Development Sequences. Both first and second language
learners follow a pattern of development, which is mainly followed despite exceptions.
Rod Ellis (1984) covers the idea of developmental sequences in detail and outlines three
developmental stages: the silent period, formulaic speech, and structural and semantic
simplification.
 3

Another thing is the Acquisition Order in acquiring grammatical morphemes. The

findings are important but contradictory and have implications on first and second
language acquisition. According to Brown (1973), there is a common - invariant -
sequence of acquisition for at least 14 function words in English as a first language -
noun and verb inflections, prepositions, and articles. Findings of these studies pointed
out that there is a definite order in the acquisition of morphemes in English first
language learners.

The researcher also mentioned about these two approaches -Linguistic

Universals and Markedness. The first approach was put forward by Greenberg (1966, in
Ellis 1994) and termed typological universals. Typological universals are based on cross-
linguistic comparisons on a wide range of languages drawn from different language
families to discover which features they have in common (e.g. all languages have
nouns, verbs etc.). The second approach is the generative school represented by
Chomsky. The aim is to study individual languages in great depth in order to identify
the principles of grammar which underlie and govern specificrules. This approach was
later termed as Universal Grammar (Ellis, 1994).

Stephen Krashen (1982) has put forward the Input Hypothesis which reveals the
importance he places on input. He argues that the learner needs to receive
comprehensible input to acquire language. Information about the grammar is
automatically available when the input is understood. Krashen argues that the input a
first language learner receives is simple and comprehensible at the beginning and is
getting slightly more complicated. With this argument, he supports his next argument
that input should be slightly above the level of the language learner (i+1). Only in doing
so can the second language learner move forward. He argues that the second language
learner should be exposed to the target language as much as possible and that the lack
of comprehensible input will cause the language learner to be held up in his
development (Ellis, 1994; McLaughlin, 1987).

In the Philippines, there were also studies on the experiences of L2 in the

context of Classroom teaching and of those is of Gaerla (2016) entitled LEARNING IN
A L2: An analysis of less successful Filipino ESL learners’ experiences through
Consensual Qualitative Research.

She pointed out that despite being bilingual in Filipino and English, not all Filipino
learners are successful in learning in English which is their second language (L2) and
the MOI in Philippine schools. Majority of research on learning course content in a L2
have looked into the factors that lead to successful learning.
 4

However, for a complete picture of learning in a L2, factors that render a learner
“less successful” must also be explored as this may lead to a better understanding of
this group of learners. In this study, 15 Filipino high school ESL learners were
interviewed about their learning in English.

A central finding in the results is that the participants are not motivated to use or
learn in English. They do not see English as part of or necessary to their future, and
even if they do, they do not seem to want to exert too much effort to use the language.
In contrast, Gaerlan (2009) found that successful learners are highly interested and
motivated to use English because they believed this would ensure them of success in
the future.

1.3 PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS

The theories and principles underlying the L1 and L2 acquisition provide a

comprehensive background especially for those makers of curriculum. As we have
observed in the Philippine Setting, the Department of Education intensifies their effort
on Language Teaching preference. The said agency had planned out and applied that
the medium of instruction to be used from Kindergarten to Grade three is the mother-
tongue. But the problem arises because the pupils have different mother-tongue as
their first language.

Based on our observation also, there are kids who can already converse the
second language even they are not yet entering school for formal education. One factor
we can link is the mobile gadget exposure. As we can note, mobile technology has
some linguistic features. Kids can play videos from the Facebook and YouTube app. In
this process, the child can imitate the sounds he or she hears.

Moreover, there are really instances proving that critical period hypothesis is
true. In my case, my father who is already in his senior citizen stage, cannot speak
chabacano fluently. However, my niece, who is already three years old and having
bisaya as her first language, can already speak simple chabacano sentences with
correct syntactic structures. Maybe because the child permits herself to learn and her
brain is active enough to acquire the second language.
 5

1.4 OPINIONS/ RECOMMENDATIONS

In the field of language teaching, the teacher should more or less understand
and become sensitive to the complex process of L1 and L2 acquisition. It is
recommendable that teachers should take a look first with their teaching methods if
they intend to have students outstanding language performance.

The presentations of the different theories in L1 and L2 acquisition suggest that

language teachers should not only focus on one single theory within the framework of
L1 and L2 acquisition in imparting or teaching language lessons but one must look into
the different theories and analyze which of them is applicable based on the status or
background of their students.

We are thankful that there are researches that showcase the similarities and
differences between first and second language acquisition because they provide the
language teachers with information to help them in their profession. Taking the case of
language teachers from the College of Liberal Arts of WMSU Graduate School, we can
note that the language teachers really plans classroom activities and designing syllabi in
accordance to their knowledge in all language theories and methodologies with the aim
of imparting a wholesome education to the students.

References

 Moinzadeh A. et al (2012, January 12 ). A Contrastive Study of L1 and L2 Acquisition. Retrieved

from: http://www.academypublication.com/issues/past/tpls/vol02/01/09.pdf.

 Ipek H. (2009, June). Comparing and Contrasting First and Second Language
Acquisition: Implications for Language Teachers. Retrieved from
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1082388.pdf

 Gaerlan M, (2016-March 6-9). LEARNING IN A L2: An analysis of less successful

Filipino ESL learners’ experiences through Consensual Qualitative Research. Retrieved
from https://www.dlsu.edu.ph/wp-content/uploads/pdf/conferences/research-congress-
proceedings/2016/LLI/LLI-II-01.pdf