Ensino e Aprendizagem de Inglês Com Língua Estrangeira - Língua materna, língua estrangeira e segunda língua

Prévia do material em texto

First, foreign and second languages
First and second language acquisition, terminologies of distinction between a mother and an additional
language, and the development of linguistic competencies in first (L1) and second language (L2).
Professor Erika Coachman
1. Itens iniciais
Purpose
Language learning is a complex process. Findings on the diverse fields within the realm of Linguistics have
unveiled many important and distinctive traits of L1 and L2 acquisition. As you go through this Unit, you shall
become more familiar with the notions of L1 and L2. Moreover, you shall understand how learning a mother
tongue may at times either differ or resemble the development of linguistic skills in L2.
Preparation
Make sure you have an English dictionary at hand. If you prefer the screen to the page, you can rely on free
online options, such as theCambridgeand theMerriam-Websterdictionaries. If you want to enrich your
vocabulary and learn new expressions, try theThesaurus, a dictionary that lists antonyms and synonyms for
each word.Lingueeis a tool that might also come in handy since it provides contextualized translations and
versions of the expressions you search.
Goals
To analyze the concept of first language and the acquisition process.
To compare second language acquisition theories/approaches and the rationale behind them.
Warm up
Before we investigate the mechanisms of first and second language acquisition, it is crucial to discuss the
nature of language itself. As the famous linguist Noam Chomsky (2013, p.646) suggests, “no biologist would
propose an account of the development of the eye without telling us something fairly definite about what an
eye is, and the same truisms hold of inquiries into language”. Over the course of centuries, many theorists and
researchers have attempted to provide a straightforward definition on language, but controversies are still rife
to the present date. 
For the Greek philosopher Aristotle, language can be squarely defined as “sound with meaning”. For the Swiss
linguist Ferdinand de Saussure, language can be best described as a repository of “word images” arbitrarily
created by members of a given linguistic community. According to the American linguist Leonard Bloomfield,
language corresponds to a set of habits established by a speech community that is activated when one needs
to respond to a situation with adequate and conventionalized speech sounds. For his predecessor, the
American linguist William Dwight Whitney, language is “the body of uttered and audible signs” that human
society has employed to convey ideas. The anthropologist Edward Sapir also highlighted this social role of
language, underscoring its function as a “non-instinctive method” that communicates ideas and emotions with
the help of symbols voluntarily produced (CHOMSKY, 2013, p. 648). 
Regardless of the linguistic approach you support, you must bear in mind that all of them have acknowledged
that language is fundamentally human, an ability that has allowed humanity to communicate and engrave
knowledge as well as past experiences into our history and cultural heritage. 
In the first section, we shall exploit the characteristics of a first language (L1) and first language acquisition
and shed light on some of the theories that tackle the complex mechanisms through which humans learn their
mother tongues. In the second section, the focus lies on the challenges of second language learning and its
distinctive processes. At last, we shall discuss the main differences between the concepts of language
learning and language acquisition. 
• 
• 
1. First Language
Linguistic competence: the need for social interaction
Most Western middle-class children are raised within monolingual contexts, that is, in environments where
only a single language is spoken. The process through which their mother tongue is acquired has been
targeted by several studies over the course of years, more extensively investigated than Second Language
Acquisition, for instance. 
For such monolingual individuals, “the bulk of language is
acquired between eighteen months and three to four years
of age” (ORTEGA, 2013, p. 3). But first language (or L1)
acquisition starts a lot sooner than that, with the critical
stage for linguistic development starting in the womb and
carrying on until children reach the age of four.
As you shall learn throughout this section, children are not
born linguistically competent.
That is to say that language will not be learned unless
they are inserted in a speech community, in which linguistic norms and social expectations regarding
communication are an essential part of everyday life.
But what happens to children in the absence of such conditions? To what extent is social belonging a sine qua
non condition for the acquisition of linguistic skills? Let's see some examples.
Exemplo
Some intriguing cases of children found in absolute social isolation date back to the 1800s. Some lived in
the company of wild animals while others were on their own in the wilderness, deprived of contact with
fellow humans. In the 1920s, two girls, famously known as Amala and Kamala, were found in India where
they had been supposedly adopted by a wolf family. There is also the notorious case of Victor, the wild
boy of Aveyron, found living by himself in the woods in France. 
Infants who grew up in such extreme conditions, completely deprived of linguistic stimulus and social
interaction, became known as “wild” or “feral” children and many researchers have tried to analyze records of
their progress (and limitations) in terms of language acquisition after they were brought into civilization
(CURTISS et al, 1974).
Language acquisition depends on social interactions within a given speech community, in which
children can learn the various meanings conveyed by sounds, words, and structures. 
As integral parts of such communities, children learn how to interpret discourse and how to construct it, what
is considered appropriate and what is not, “how to make themselves understood, and how to understand
others” (CLARK, 2009, p.1).
Although first language acquisition involves the assimilation of complex knowledge, it is typically an unassisted
and spontaneous process stemming from unstructured and mostly uncontrolled social experiences (CLARK,
2009; DONOGHUE, 1968). Nevertheless, building up knowledge of our mother tongue is not a simple task, but
it relies on a collection of complex abilities that we tend to overlook.
The stages of L1 acquisition
One-year-old babies seem to be getting started with first language acquisition when their first words start
coming out. Yet, as affirmed before, language acquisition was well under way before they were even born. 
From the womb and during the very first months, babies
typically become familiarized with prosodic and phonologic
linguistic patterns, learning, for instance, the dynamics of
turn-taking. Babies normally go from babbling between the
seventh or tenth month to articulating one-word utterances
around the first year of life.
The second year is characterized by the expansion of
vocabulary and the enunciation of two-word utterances. As
children reach the age of three, they enhance their
knowledge in the fields of syntax and morphology, and
fluent conversation on some topics is achieved. Gradually, they master the mechanics of turn-taking and start
engaging more actively in discursive interactions, using their linguistic skills to explain, persuade, give
instructions, and share stories.
More subtle and complex linguistic knowledge
is acquired around the sixth year, when children
are often taught how to read and write. By the
time children are ten, they have picked up a
wide array of complex linguistic structures and
learned to handle extensive vocabulary and
many discursive abilities.
Teenagers’ experiences with language and
literacies may vary so widely that it is
impossible to set general landmarks at this
stage. For this reason, it is generally acceptedthat the basics of L1 acquisition are accomplished somewhere between the ages of four and six (ORTEGA,
2013; CLARK, 2009).
Saiba mais
Studies in the field of first language acquisition suggest that children normally acquire intonation before
speech. Even though the evidence is not conclusive, some researchers have put forward the hypothesis
that babbling is a stage at which babies learn intonation while playing with different pitch contours
(CURTISS et al., 1974). 
Language acquisition is one dimension of intense cognitive development underway during babies’ first year. By
the time they turn only one year old, they can already detect similarities, recognize faces, notice where objects
are usually kept, and how they must be handled. Around their first year, they have also developed some level
of spatial awareness, distinguishing “up” from “down”, “back” (or “invisible”) from “front” (or “visible”), as well
as “inside” from “outside”, for example.
As we explore the field of L1 acquisition, it is essential to highlight that linguistic development is not a
homogeneous process. Consider, for example, the mismatch between:
 
Comprehension; 
Production.
• 
• 
As a norm, children understand far more words than they can articulate – a discrepancy that persists
throughout their lives but tends to go unnoticed after production becomes more proficient. The same
unbalance is evident in second language learning, with adult learners comprehending a lot better than they
can express themselves. However, such discrepancies are precisely what pushes children’s linguistic
development forward with infants targeting what they comprehend to improve their production. 
Heterogeneity in L1 acquisition also holds true across different languages: because they are not identical, one
should not expect the entire learning process to look the same. After all, language acquisition is influenced by 
the level of difficulty of its elements, and, depending on its distinctive properties, certain patterns may be
easier or harder to assimilate (CLARK, 2009).
Children’s strategies towards L1 acquisition
In addition, language acquisition is influenced by learners’ profiles. Some are more conservative and avoid
taking risks until they can rely on enough evidence from the adult speech to shape their production. These
children often accumulate a lot of input from adult conversation before making generalizations to alter their
speech. Others are even more conservative and prefer even more limited generalizations, basically moving
items as they acquire their mother tongue.
On the other hand, there are also fearless learners, eager to generalize the rules as they are assimilated. Such
attitude toward L1 acquisition results in overgeneralizations that typically regularize irregular forms. 
Exemplo
Consider, for example, the past inflection of regular verbs. You must remember that most verbs in English
– such as “love”, “hate”, “work” and “walk” – are classified as “regular”. In these cases, all we need to do is
to predictably add an “ed” to get the past forms “loved”, “hated”, “worked”, and “walked”. After identifying
this pattern, bold learners usually stretch this rule to account for the past forms of irregular verbs,
coming up with mistakes such as “teached” (instead of “taught”), “goed” (instead of “went”) and
“drinked” (instead of “drank”). 
The same line of thought leads to the regularization of irregular plurals. When children realize that plural forms
are constructed by adding the desinence “s” to the end of nouns, some overgeneralize this pattern, producing
“foots” (in the place of “feet”), “mouses” (in the place of “mice”), “childs” (in the place of “children”) and so
forth (CLARK, 2009).
But the construction of rules for language use is far from
being the only tool available for young learners. 
Children may also learn by rote, for example, whenever they
acquire new knowledge based on the memorization of
repeated information.
That is the case, for example, of learners who memorize the
plural forms of each word at a time, rather than
overregularizing the use of the desinence “s”. This method
prevents errors like “womans” (in the place of “women”) and “eated” (in the place of “ate”), but it is widely
known that children do make such mistakes.
After all, they do not necessarily elect one single learning strategy for the entire language acquisition process.
Some children use rote learning to memorize the plural form of a few words so that, later, they can apply the
identified patterns to decide on the plural of similar words. The use of the “s” as a plural desinence for “dogs”
can be successfully applied to “cats” by analogy, but the same procedure would be misleading for the plural of
“sheep” (CLARK, 2009).
As you may have perceived, either learning by rule or by analogy consists of replicating a familiar
pattern to a different word. In opposition, when learning by schema, the point of departure is a
schema, or a template – in other words, a settled mental model used to approach new words. If the
regular past form is your template, you basically add “ed” to new verbs.
But schema can also cause mistakes. When handling words in the singular ending with the [s] sound, for
instance, learners may imply that they are already in the plural form and fail to add the plural desinence
appropriately. That could easily happen to words such as “horse”, which ends with the [s] sound.
Identifying children’s most recurrent strategies for L1 acquisition depends substantially on the analysis of
“what they get right and what they get wrong” (CLARK, 2009). To have a clearer picture of the strategies
employed during first language acquisition, examine the cards below:
Rote
New linguistic knowledge is acquired thanks to
item by item memorization.
Analogy
Children identify linguistic patterns and apply
them to similar words.
Rule
Because of extensive exposition to certain
words, children identify a pattern, a rule that
they tend to generalize, or even overgeneralize.
Schema
Children start out with a schema and make the
necessary adjustments to conform to it.
Innate abilities or socially learned competencies?
Accumulating vocabulary – whether learned by rote, rule, analogy, or schema – is always a monumental task,
especially if we consider that an adult’s repertoire ranges between 50,000 and 100,000 words. Acquiring
knowledge of the mechanics of syntax is also demanding and researchers diverge widely on how children
learn syntactic constructions.
After all, do they possess any sort of innate or built-in apparatus that enables them to go through
first language acquisition? 
For those in favor of the innateness hypothesis, children must count on an inborn mechanism for the learning
of their mother tongues, or they would not manage to acquire more complex structures that tend to lack in
adult conversation. Since young learners succeed at acquiring their first language anyway, some researchers
rule out the possibility that children start from zero, as the idea of John Locke’s tabula rasa suggests.
But if they do make a fresh start, unassisted by
innate knowledge and pre-wired language
acquisition mechanisms, how active is their role
in this process? Do children merely absorb
linguistic patterns they are exposed to? Or can
they perform a more active role, identifying
linguistic patterns, tracing parallels by analogy,
and generalizing the rules they have
assimilated?
Alternatively, could it be the case that, upon
birth, children have already got what it takes
just to get their first language acquisition in motion? And if children are indeed given such inborn mechanisms,
should these pre-wired apparatus be understood as serving exclusively language-specific goals or general
achievements (CLARK, 2009)?
There is no definite answer to these questions and the line separating possible innate abilities from socially
learned competencies is often blurred. Moreover, a vast array of theories on first language acquisition is
distributedalong the line between these two extremes. Consider, as an example, the handling of verbs and
nouns. According to Clark (2009): 
Step by step, children come to understand that nouns can be used as labels for things, places, and people,
whereas verbs can designate actions.
Some researchers have advocated in favor of a paradigm known as “parameter setting”. Based on this
approach to first language acquisition, children are born with “default settings”, innate mechanisms that enable
them to grasp all the different dimensions that tell languages apart. Throughout their acquisition process,
children gradually detect the parameter settings for their mother tongue as they reach either the right age or
the adequate stage of development. From that moment on, children start using the parameter learned in ways
that resemble adults.
Before parameters for plurality are set, for example, children’s typical point of departure is to turn to “more” or
to a familiar numeral (like “two”) to convey the notion of plurality. At this point, children do understand that
singular forms are different from plural forms; the notion of number is there, but learners still lack formal
linguistic knowledge to express it appropriately. Eventually, this stage is followed by the acquisition of the
plural “s” ending (CLARK, 2009).
Curiosidade
According to Clark (2009), small children initially attempt to get the beginning of words right to help their
hearers understand what they are talking about. After this stage, they often start working on the
pronunciation of word-endings and that tends to be the moment in which the production of the plural
desinence is brought about. 
Differences across languages
So far, you have analyzed language acquisition as if it were a uniform process. Still, you should bear in mind
that differences across languages impact the learning process, making certain points harder to learn than
others. Although children’s cognitive development occurs at about the same pace around the globe, the
acquisition of certain linguistic features may take longer than others according to their levels of difficulty: 
The more uniform and predictable, the easier to learn.
Consider as an example the acquisition of the plural in English. Except for a few irregular words, the rule
remains pretty much the same, with the “s” ending remaining almost invariant as a plural desinence for most
words. Such simple logic cannot be extended to other languages because some may call for the use of
different plural markers in accordance with the gender or the ending of the noun.
Some scholars... 
...insist that these two categories are an
intrinsic part of children’s innate linguistic
knowledge. 
Others scholars... 
...defend children tend to realize the
difference between the two as they
observe adults handle them in everyday
speech while paying attention to the
linguistic context in which they appear. 
Depending on the language, phonological traits may differ widely, with some making room for the combination
of vowels under the form of diphthongs and others privileging the use of pure vowels in syllables. In the realm
of syntax, languages like Latin, German and Finnish establish the syntactic role of each word in a clause with
the help of case endings. The nominative case ending, for example, is placed at the end of a word to signal it
functions as a subject. Yet, languages (like English) rely on word order to determine “who is doing what to
whom” (CLARK, 2009).
Languages may also vary in terms of how words are ordered within a clause. Let's see some examples:
SOV
Japanese, for example, tends to form clauses
with the SOV (subject – object – verb)
SVO
English, for example, privileges the SVO
(subject – verb – object) order.
Such predictable patterns are crucial for the language acquisition process, for they help children acquire rules
they can generalize when shaping their productions. Most SVO languages – such as Portuguese, for instance –
place adjectives after the nouns they refer to. Nevertheless, this generalization fails when it comes to English:
despite being an SVO language, it typically locates adjectives before the nouns they qualify (CLARK, 2009).
As you can see, the identification of linguistic patterns can be misleading at times, but a certain level of
predictability is what makes a language learnable. In her book entitled First Language Acquisition, Eve Clark
(2009) underscores the relevance of such consistency for children as they go through the acquisition process:
The internal consistencies in a language help speakers keep track of what they are listening to and what
they are planning to say themselves. They allow predictions about linguistic units and offer predictable
frames for the presentation of information. So, children need to learn general structural regularities in the
language they are acquiring – whether it is an SOV or SVO language, whether relative clauses and
adjectives follow or precede the nominals they modify, whether locative phrases are signaled by
preposition or postpositions, and so on. These properties are important because, once speakers have
identified them, they can rely on certain assumptions about the kind of information that can come next in
an utterance. 
(CLARK, 2009, p.4)
In a nutshell, linguistic knowledge, both on the structure and the functions of utterances, is the catalyst of
language acquisition, providing children with some general assumptions on how to build meaning from their
interactions and how to express themselves. But the building up of linguistic competence does not rely solely
on how extensive your semantic and syntactic repertoire is.
To be successful, first language learning must also encompass the ability to engage discursively in accordance
with the context, raising awareness on how each situation may demand word choices or linguistic structures
to convey the intended meaning. In Clark’s words:
There is no one-to-one mapping of linguistic constructions and words to each situation. Did Justin chase
the dog? Or did the dog run away from Justin? Did Sophie come into the house or go into the house? Did
Kate teach the children to tie knots, or did the children learn to tie knots from Kate? In each case, the
choice of construction and words conveys a particular perspective on the event. At the same time, the
perspectives speakers can take may be limited by what is available in their language. 
(CLARK, 2009, p.4)
The social component of language acquisition
According to a popular proverb, “it takes a village to raise a child”. Traditionally, the old dictum has been taken
as a reminder that child development is not entirely up to him or her, but also significantly dependent on the
support of the community in which he or she is inserted. When it comes to first language acquisition, the
famous proverb still holds its value.
After all, human interaction is indeed the main medium through which linguistic knowledge is built
and discursive skills, enhanced. 
According to Clark (2009), conversation with adults is of paramount importance, since it offers children not
only a wealth of vocabulary, but also clues on how, when and what they should speak. Thanks to engagement
in such conversations, young learners manage to take in linguistic knowledge, assimilating implicit grammatical
rules in addition to social expectations regarding turn-taking and discursive interaction. In Clark’s own words:
They learn to think – and plan – for speaking in that language (…). Conversation provides a forum for
language use. It displays language embedded in larger systems for communication and so presents
children with critical material for making sense of language as they try to understand and make
themselves understood. Conversational exchanges between children and adults are also a forum for
learning to become a member of the society and the culture. 
(CLARK, 2009, p.6)
In other words, conversation is key not exclusively to first language acquisition itself, but alsoto broader
processes in which children’s relationships with the community and the established social practices are built. 
Atenção
Learning a mother tongue should not be taken for granted as a mechanical process in which individuals
merely memorize vocabulary and absorb syntactic patterns. 
Chart 1 hints at the complexities and subtleties of meaning construction as a social and cultural process.
Chart 1 - Meaning construction as a social and cultural process.
Based on Chart 1, we can understand that meaning making does not rely solely on the simple assimilation of
grammatical structures. It takes more than that. In this case, it is the context of use that ultimately determines
the meaning of “can”. The modal “can” may convey the idea of ability if the speaker is questioning whether the
hearer has the strength or the skill to open a certain door that he or she has not managed to open yet. On the
other hand, it may also imply the notion of “request”, if the speaker is simply asking the hearer to open the
door. 
Comentário
As Paulo Freire (1985, p. 20) once affirmed, language acquisition should not “separate reading the word
and reading the world, reading the text and reading the context”. 
Hence, effective linguistic knowledge is not limited to the contents of grammar books, since it also comprises 
discursive skills and social conventions for language usage unequivocally molded by speech communities and
their cultural repertoire.
But if the L1 acquisition does not end with the assimilation of vocabulary and grammar, studies on the learning
of first languages should also encompass the ways children take in conventions for language use. For Clark
(2009), conversation plays again a pivotal role in the process. Imagine that, during a given discursive
interaction, an adult decides to address the same question for a second time. Such repetition could send the
child the message that the initial answer was not clear enough and an alternative response is needed. 
However, the repetition of a question can be
interpreted differently in a classroom setting,
where the teacher may ask a question twice to
ensure the student is indeed confident and has
not provided a random answer. In the latter
scenario, the child is not expected to
reformulate the original statement, but to
repeat it. 
Language use is, therefore, crafted by a vast
number of social and contextual clues. Take
into consideration, for example, situations in
which speech is molded by a high level of politeness and formality. Such contexts call for the use of more
formal terms of address (such as Mr. and Mrs. or Ms.) and for the selection of specific syntactic constructions
(like “would you pass me the salt?” in the place of “pass me the salt”).
For Clark (2009), language should not be seen as an independent communication system, since it is not used
in isolation: all in all, linguistic exchanges are wrapped up in social interactions in which gaze, gestures, facial
expression, voice quality, and other non-verbal factors are intrinsic parts of the communication process.
Therefore, first language acquisition involves, to a certain extent, the assimilation of non-verbal constituents of
communication.
Before children manage to construct meaning
out of the utterances voiced by the speaker,
they can make sense out of non-verbal clues,
such as gaze, gestures, or intonation. 
Based on what adults are looking at, for
example, they can attempt to infer the referents
of unfamiliar words.
Because social belonging entails language
acquisition, one could say that the definite
objective of learning a mother tongue is to promote one’s participation in a speech community. As we have
discussed, first language acquisition encompasses tacit knowledge of its structure and its components: to
engage effectively in discursive interactions, children must learn all the speech sounds available in their
mother tongue; in other words, they must hold implicit knowledge on phonology to identify sounds that can be
combined in words or syllables, stress patterns that may shape the pronunciation of various utterances, and
intonation contours that can allow us to tell a question from a statement.
Secondly, children must take hold of morphology – that is, they have to grasp how words are structured. In
English, words comprise one, two, or more syllables. Some of them are built craftily with the help of blocks like
suffixes and prefixes. That is the case of more complex words in which prefixes and/ or suffixes are added to a
stem, for example:
 
unhappiness;
 
teacher;
 
disagreement.
In addition to handling morphological building blocks to create new words or to reproduce existing ones, a first
language learner must be able to organize them within sentences according to their mother tongue’s syntax.
From a syntactic perspective, meaning is not conveyed properly when loose words are juxtaposed at random.
• 
• 
• 
Exemplo
In English, for example, some sequences are possible, while others are not: adjectives are placed before
the nouns they qualify (as in “intelligent child”), but relative clauses (whether restrictive or non-
restrictive) typically follow their referents. Nevertheless, subordinate clauses beginning with linking
words – such as “when”, “because” or “if” – can appear either before or after the main clause. 
At last, language also embraces the linguistic realm focused on meaning; namely, semantics. Furthermore,
communication in any speech community relies on tacit agreements regarding the meanings conveyed by
different words, as Clark affirms:
Language is used to convey meaning. Words, suffixes, and prefixes all carry meanings that are
conventional (Lewis 1969). The speech community relies on all its members agreeing that ball means
“ball”, throw means “throw” and sand means “sand”. These conventions are what make languages work.
Without agreements about meanings one couldn’t rely on the fact that the next time someone uses sand,
say, people hearing the word will still interpret it in the same way. 
(CLARK, 2009, p. 13)
At last, as stated previously, successful first language acquisition depends on the construction of situated
knowledge about the conventions for language use – something that may change substantially from one
speech community to another, even when both of them share the same mother tongue. Now, you should
examine Chart 2 where you can find a summary of the five main areas targeted by first language acquisition.
Chart 2 - The five targets of first language acquisition.
What is L1 acquisition, anyway?
What does language acquisition entail? What are children’s strategies toward L1 acquisition? This interview will
address these questions and many others!
Conteúdo interativo
Acesse a versão digital para assistir ao vídeo.
Follow the thread
The most important topics of this section are revised in the following videos.
L1 acquisition (stages).
Conteúdo interativo
Acesse a versão digital para assistir ao vídeo.
L1 acquisition (strategies).
Conteúdo interativo
Acesse a versão digital para assistir ao vídeo.
Language acquisition: the innateness hypothesis.
Conteúdo interativo
Acesse a versão digital para assistir ao vídeo.
Learning Check
Question 1
Even though first language acquisition seems, at first, quite simple as we know that children do learn how to
speak; it is, in fact, a complex process that encompasses many stages. It is correct to affirm that first language
acquisition comprises:
A
only the memorization of vocabulary and the construction of knowledge on grammar.
B
exclusively the assimilation of conventions for language usage as they have been framed by particular speech
communities.
C
the critical stage for linguistic development starting in the womb and carrying on until children reach the age
of four.
D
only the acquisition of morphology, phonology, syntax, and semantics.
E
solely the learning of how to handle the building blocks that form words and the syntactic knowledge
necessaryto arrange them within sentences.
A alternativa C está correta.
First language acquisition typically comprises the critical period in which linguistic development is carried
out, starting in the womb and moving on until the child turns four years old. It encompasses more than
knowledge of morphology, phonology, semantics, and syntax, as it also includes the acquisition of social
conventions for language use within a given speech community.
Question 2
Children may make use of different strategies during language acquisition. They may learn by rule, analogy,
schema, and rote, for instance. Choose the correct alternative regarding the strategies young learners use to
promote first language acquisition:
A
Children learn by rule when new linguistic knowledge is acquired based on item-by-item memorization.
B
Children learn by rule when, after extensive exposition to certain words, they manage to detect a pattern that
they often generalize and overgeneralize.
C
Children learn by analogy when they acquire new knowledge via memorization.
D
Children learn by schema when they identify linguistic patterns and apply them to similar words.
E
Children learn by rule whenever they start with a template or a schema and make the necessary adjustments
to conform to it.
A alternativa B está correta.
Learning by rule consists of identifying a rule that can be generalized (and is often overgeneralized).
Children identify a pattern, a rule, such as the adding of -ed at the end of verbs to form the simple past,
which they tend to generalize, or even overgeneralize.
2. Foreign and Second Languages
Defining L2
L2? Additional Language? Foreign language? Do you know what these terms mean? In this section, we will
navigate through these terms. We will draw distinctions and similarities and we will briefly tackle more
contemporary approaches to language acquisition.
We classify as “L2”, “Second Language” or “Additional Language” any language learned after first language
acquisition. Although this classification may sound quite simple, such clear-cut definitions have rather limited
reach in real-life situations.
Comentário
All in all, several small children are raised in bilingual or multilingual contexts, making it virtually
impossible to set an unequivocal distinction between the first and second languages due to the
simultaneity of their acquisition processes. 
In a multilingual context, proposing accurate classifications is rather more complex, once the terms L2 or
Second Language may refer to a third, a fourth, or a fifth language, for instance. Thus, as Ortega (2013)
suggests, these definitions should not be interpreted, as straightforward categories, but carefully employed as
abstractions employed for analytical purposes.
Over the course of the last few years, you may have perceived that the expression “Additional Language” has
become increasingly used, often replacing the more conventional term “Second Language” or “Foreign
Language”.
In the field of English Language Teaching, particularly, the expression owes its rising popularity to critical
approaches to second language acquisition, that typically call for increased awareness of learners’ linguistic
achievements instead of focusing on the skills that remain under construction in the target language.
Furthermore, the word “additional” also underscores that English is just an alternative medium of
communication for these learners’ communication – an implicit reminder of their already accomplished
discursive competence in their mother tongues (CREESE, 2005).
Most young learners around the world are used to learning two or more languages at the same time.
Monolingual children are less numerous than bilingual or multilingual infants. Do you know what bilingual or
multilingual acquisition is?
Bilingual or multilingual acquisition
The notion of bilingual or multilingual acquisition refers to these situations in which two or more
languages are learned simultaneously before children reach the age of four.
Likewise, the field of research that investigates the simultaneous acquisition of different languages is known
as bilingualism or multilingualism, which sheds light on how the human brain can accommodate diverse
linguistic systems at the same time and how these bilingual or multilingual individuals develop the ability to
switch from one code to another according to the social interaction or their communicative needs and desires.
SLA versus Bilingualism
As a field of Linguistics, Second Language Acquisition (hereinafter, “SLA”) differs from bilingual or multilingual
acquisition since it has traditionally aimed at understanding how individuals in late childhood, teenage or
adulthood learn other languages once proficiency in their mother tongue(s) – in the case of multilingual
learners – is already achieved. 
In other words, the goal of SLA is to comprehend how languages other than L1 are learned after the
age of four when the bulk of language has already been acquired (ORTEGA, 2013). 
Did you know that there are over 6,500 different documented languages?
Despite this huge linguistic variety, the linguist Noam Chomsky has famously argued that it is possible to
detect a universal grammar across languages – that is, a universal core of fundamental properties that remain
common to all these different linguistic systems (ORTEGA, 2013).
Initially, research in SLA started coming forth in the 1960s, often appropriating interdisciplinary contributions,
learning from the realms of psychology, language teaching, and first language acquisition. In the 1980s and
1990s, studies on SLA gained momentum and, in the first years of the 21st century, SLA had already
guaranteed its status as an autonomous field (ORTEGA, 2013).
But the difference between bilingualism and SLA is not always in black and white and drawing a line to
separate the two remains a challenge.
 
Firstly, the traditional scope of SLA is late acquirers, while the typical focus of bilingualism is early
starters.
 
Secondly, research on bilingualism tends to concentrate on bilingual individuals’ mature linguistic 
products. In the meantime, the goal of investigations in the field of SLA is to understand the process
learners need to go through to develop linguistic competence in their target language. As Ortega (2013,
p.4) summarizes, SLA aims at understanding “the incipient stages rather than mature competence”.
 
Thirdly, SLA and bilingual studies differ in the sense that the latter is interested in all the languages
acquired by the individual, whereas the former remains broadly focused on the second language to the
point that SLA research pays no attention to the mother tongue.
Below, you can find the differences between SLA and bilingualism:
Second language acquisition: a hybrid experience
Research on SLA has been dedicated to both naturalistic and instructed contexts for language acquisition.
Second language acquisition may take place in naturalistic contexts when learners do not receive formal
instruction but develop their linguistic competence while engaging in spontaneous social interactions at
multilingual schools, neighborhoods, and workplaces. But SLA may also occur in instructed contexts – that is,
formal settings where learners acquire the additional language while attending lessons at school or university,
for example. These two categories are illustrated in Chart 3:
1. 
2. 
3. 
SLA 
Focuses on
understanding
the process.
Concentrates
on late
acquirers.
Removes the first language
from the research picture
and focuses on the second
language.
Bilingualism 
Focuses on
understanding
mature
linguistic
products.
Concentrates
on early
starters.
Focuses on all the
different languages
acquired by the
individual.
• • • 
• • • 
Chart 3 - Contexts for Second Language Acquisition.
However, as Ortega (2013) herself indicates, these two contexts for SLA should not be seen as hard and fast
categories. The intensification of globalization has brought multiple opportunitiesfor language learners in
naturalistic and instructed settings, to the point that formal instruction may coexist with learning through
migration, international travel, multilingual marriages, and social interactions in the target language. Therefore,
the acquisition of a second language has become increasingly a hybrid experience, in which formal and 
spontaneous opportunities for learning are mingled rather than separate.
Did you know?
Traditionally, second-language acquisition was conceived as a process that differed from foreign-
language learning. Aside from the apparent opposition of the terms – acquisition and learning, which
will be later discussed – , the context in which the learner was exposed to the target language was
crucial to determine whether second-language acquisition or foreign-language learning was taking
place.
In a second-language acquisition situation, L2 is spoken in the immediate environment of the
learner. Imagine English is the L2 in question and the learner lives in Canada, where English is
one of the official languages. In this case, the learner has more opportunities to engage in
natural communicational interactions.
In a foreign-language learning situation, however, the language, English, for instance, is not
spoken in the learner’s immediate surroundings. Natural communication in the target language
is, therefore, restricted or limited.
Grounded upon commonsensical assumptions, language teachers tend to assume that foreign and second
language acquisition are distinct learning processes. Nevertheless, if analyzed from a theoretical standpoint,
the difference between these two concepts seems blurred, to the point that both expressions can be used
interchangeably (ORTEGA, 2013). 
An optimal age for language acquisition?
Is it ever too early or too late for SLA? Is there an optimal age to acquire a second language?
By the time SLA was emerging as an autonomous field, around the 1960s, influential research on the topic
attempted to answer these two intriguing questions (Lenneberg, 1967; Penfield; Roberts, 1959; In ORTEGA,
2013).
• 
• 
Based on data generated in the realm of
neurolinguistics, these studies reached
conclusions contradicting the widespread belief
that children’s brains are naturally fit for
language acquisition, considerably more
disposed than adults’.
At the time, researchers tended to blame the
disparity between children’s and adults’
outcomes on the loss of plasticity of the human
brain – a phenomenon expected to occur at
some point around the age of nine and
commonly associated with the start of puberty and to a neurological process called lateralization, that is, the
specialization of the left hemisphere, part of the brain in charge of handling language acquisition.
Although the belief in children’s aptitude for language acquisition is still pervasive, new clues have revealed
that young learners do not always pick up linguistic knowledge faster and more efficiently than adults.
Surprising evidence has suggested that adults and teenagers take in more either from formal language
instruction or from naturalistic experiences with an additional language– a result that likely owes to their
previous development of metalinguistic abilities and cognitive materials. However, this advantage of older over
younger tends to narrow over the course of months, until the situation inverts with children learning at a faster
pace than older children and adults. Therefore, the advantage of younger over older ones becomes apparent
in the long run. 
Comentário
According to collected data, adult's and older children’s advantage typically disappears after a little more
than a year, with younger learners performing better than more mature individuals in the long term. 
Language learning or language acquisition?
For Stephen Krashen (2003), the development of linguistic skills may follow two distinct paths: acquisition and
learning. Acquisition is usually defined as a subconscious process. In Krashen’s words:
(…) while it is happening, we are not aware that it is happening. Also, once we have acquired something,
we are not usually aware that we possess any new knowledge; the knowledge is stored in our brains
subconsciously. The research strongly supports the view that both children and adults can
subconsciously acquire language. (…) In non-technical language, acquisition is sometimes referred to as
“picking up” a language. When someone says, “I was in France for a while and picked up some French”, it
means he or she acquired some French. 
(KRASHEN, 2003, p.1)
The alternative pathway is language learning, that Krashen (2003) has defined as a conscious process in
which we are aware of our linguistic development; after all, learned knowledge is consciously represented in
our brains. Whenever a language learner talks about language in terms of “grammar” or “rules”, we may
conclude that “learning”, as opposed to “acquisition”, is happening. Such a conscious approach to language
learning makes room for both – error correction as well as self-correction.
Error correction takes place whenever someone else corrects learners’ errors, inviting them to modify their
conscious version of a grammatical rule.
Exemplo
Imagine, for example, that a second language learner speaks “she work remotely every day” in a
language classroom. In this case, the teacher is likely to draw the student’s attention to the lack of the
third person singular inflection, helping the learner realize that “s” is added to verbs in the Simple Present
tense whenever “he”, “she” or “it” functions as the subject of a given clause. In this particular case,
“works” should replace the non-inflected verb form “work”. 
Alternatively, language learners may correct their production, using what Krashen (2003, p.2) has named
“conscious monitor” for the purpose of self-correction. When learners can self-correct, they edit their
language use aided by their own “feel for correctness”. As useful as they seem, correction and self-correction
– as well as conscious learning in general – are rather limited in terms of the contribution they offer to fluency
and accuracy, for spontaneous conversations do not offer the time for speakers to monitor their discursive
productions and it is hard to keep track of form and meaning simultaneously (KRASHEN, 2003).
Although Stephen Krashen (2003) has famously drawn this conceptual line to maintain apart the notions of
language acquisition and language learning, the differences between these two terms are not a consensus in
the field of SLA.
Comentário
For Lourdes Ortega (2013), for example, these two concepts can be used interchangeably and no
distinction between these concepts should be upheld in contemporary SLA terminology. 
A translingual approach to language learning
Traditionally, when analyzing both first and second language learning, linguists often privilege a monolingual
approach to acquisition, generally based on the assumption that texts should be written or spoken in only one
language at a time. However, in the book Translingual Practice: Global English and Cosmopolitan Relations,
Canagarajah (2013) reminds us that such expectations on language usage are molded by broader ideas we
hold on what effective communication should be like.
The already well-established monolingual approach to communication and language acquisition typically
suggests that successful speakers or writers should shape their linguistic practices using a single common
language, molding their choices based on shared and widely accepted grammatical norms. 
Such monolingual orientation towards communication obviously privileges native speakers of any
given language, inviting us to marginalize and elbow aside the discursive practices of bilingual and
multilingual individuals. 
In addition, this traditional take on language as a “pure” system reproaches the mixing of one language with
others – a linguistic practice proved increasingly widespread, especially in a globalized world where
languages,as well as individuals, are always in transit – whether in the real or the virtual world, with the help
of faster means of transportation and communication. 
According to Canagarajah (2013), translingualism is a term that invites language studies to make a substantial
and innovative paradigm shift to surpass the fictitious boundaries dividing individual languages towards a
different and more hybrid approach to actual language usage in a globalized world. It is essentially based on
the five core assumptions described in Chart 4.
According to Canagarajah (2013), translingualism is a term that invites language studies to make a substantial
and innovative paradigm shift to surpass the fictitious boundaries dividing individual languages towards a
different and more hybrid approach to actual language usage in a globalized world. It is essentially based on
the five core assumptions described in Chart 4.
Chart 4 - Core assumptions of a translingual approach.
As the five approaches from Chart 4 suggest, translingualism has emerged as a fresh and original viewpoint
on both SLA and multilingualism. Based on Canagarajah’s arguments (2013), we may infer that “novice”
learners do not start from “zero”, since they bring their previously acquired ideas, values, and linguistic
knowledge into the target language. Instead of merely “absorbing” new input from “authoritative” so-called
“native speakers”, multilingual learners play an active role in the construction of alternative norms and varieties
blending new and old knowledge as they expand their linguistic repertoire.
L2 acquisition or learning?
You are in for lively discussion on second language learning and acquisition. Stay tuned!
Conteúdo interativo
Acesse a versão digital para assistir ao vídeo.
Follow the thread
The most important topics of this section are revised in the following videos.
What is L2?
Conteúdo interativo
Acesse a versão digital para assistir ao vídeo.
SLA and biligualism.
Conteúdo interativo
Acesse a versão digital para assistir ao vídeo.
Language Learning or Language acquisition?
Conteúdo interativo
Acesse a versão digital para assistir ao vídeo.
Learning Check
Question 1
Second language acquisition is a field that has drawn on psychology, language teaching, and first language
acquisition. Choose the option that best defines the traditional scope of SLA:
A
It focuses on understanding mature linguistic products.
B
It concentrates on early starters.
C
It focuses on all the different languages acquired by the individual.
D
It privileges the understanding that languages should not be seen as separate systems.
E
It focuses on understanding the process through which second languages are acquired.
A alternativa E está correta.
While bilingualism focuses on understanding mature linguistic products of those who had an early start at
language acquisition, SLA is devoted to the understanding of the process through which a second language
is acquired by late starters, often removing the f irst language from the research picture. It, therefore,
focuses on understanding the process through which second languages are acquired.
Question 2
Translingualism refers to a paradigm shift in language studies and to the understanding of language use. Mark
the alternative that best defines the concept of translingualism:
A
It is a field of study focused on the process through which a second language is acquired.
B
It proposes a paradigm shift focused on surpassing monolingual orientations and blurring the fictitious
boundaries that keep languages separate.
C
It is the field of research that attempts to understand how multilingual individuals acquire a second language.
D
It is the field of research that focuses on the process, rather than on the product, of SLA.
E
It is the paradigm based on the traditional assumption that texts must be written or spoken in only one
language at a time.
A alternativa B está correta.
Canagarajah (2013) stated that translingualism is a concept that requires language studies to make a
substantial and innovative paradigm shift to overcome the invented boundaries dividing individual
languages towards a different and more hybrid approach to actual language usage in a globalized world.
3. Conclusão
Considerações finais
In this Unit, you have learned about first and second language acquisition. We have defined first language
acquisition as the critical process in language development, the period in which young children learn their
mother tongue – a process starting in the womb and stretching until children reach the age of four. 
In addition, you have come to understand that second language acquisition is a field devoted to the
construction of theoretical knowledge on the learning of a language other than a mother tongue. You have
also become familiar with the differences that set apart bilingualism and second language acquisition. 
At last, you were introduced to the concept of “translingualism”, a branch from the field of applied linguistics
that aims at looking into languages in ways that overcome the rigid boundaries which have typically attempted
to divide them.
Podcast
Let’s recap!
Conteúdo interativo
Acesse a versão digital para ouvir o áudio.
Go Further
Different insights on Second Language Acquisition have helped examine linguistic development from various
angles. In case you are interested in learning more about the biological approach to language, you should visit
Noam Chomsky’s website. Considered the father of modern Linguistics, he has put forward ground-breaking
theories in the field, framing concepts known as “the Chomsky hierarchy”, “generative grammar” and
“universal grammar”.
 
The underlying premise of Chomsky’s works is that human language (despite their specificities) is based on
the innate (and universal) structures of the mind. His theories have had a massive effect on a vast array of
fields, including neurolinguistics, child education, language acquisition, and cognitive science, to name a few.
References
CANAGARAJAH, S. Translingual Practice: Global English and Cosmopolitan Relations. Oxfordshire: Routledge,
2013.
 
CHOMSKY, N. Lecture I: What is language? The Journal of Philosophy, 110(12), 645–662, 2013.
 
CHOMSKY, N. Minimal Computation and the Architecture of Language. Chinese Semiotic Studies, v. 12, n. 1,
2016, pp. 13-24.
 
CLARK, E. First Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.
 
CREESE, A. Teacher Collaboration and Talk in Multilingual Classrooms. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, 2005.
 
CURTISS, S. et al. The Linguistic Development of Genie. Language, 50(3), 528–554, 1974.
 
DONOGHUE, M. R. How Second-Language Learning Differs from First-Language Learning. Hispania, 51(3),
480–481, 1968.
 
FREIRE, P. Reading the World and Reading the Word: An Interview with Paulo Freire. Language Arts, 62 (1), 15–
21, 1985.
 
KRASHEN, S. Explorations in Language Acquisition and Use. New Hampshire: Heinemann Educational Books,
2003.
 
ORTEGA, L. Understanding Second Language Acquisition. Routledge: New York, 2013.
	First, foreign and second languages
	1. Itens iniciais
	Purpose
	Preparation
	Goals
	Warm up
	1. First Language
	Linguistic competence: the need for social interaction
	Exemplo
	The stages of L1 acquisition
	Saiba mais
	Children’s strategies towards L1 acquisition
	Exemplo
	Rote
	Analogy
	Rule
	Schema
	Innate abilities or socially learned competencies?
	Curiosidade
	Differences across languages
	SOV
	SVO
	The social component of language acquisition
	Atenção
	Comentário
	Exemplo
	What is L1 acquisition, anyway?
	Conteúdo interativo
	Follow the thread
	L1 acquisition (stages).
	Conteúdo interativo
	L1 acquisition (strategies).
	Conteúdo interativo
	Language acquisition: the innateness hypothesis.
	Conteúdo interativo
	Learning Check
	Question 1
	Question 2
	2. Foreign and Second Languages
	Defining L2
	Comentário
	Bilingual or multilingual acquisition
	SLA versus Bilingualism
	Second languageacquisition: a hybrid experience
	Did you know?
	An optimal age for language acquisition?
	Comentário
	Language learning or language acquisition?
	Exemplo
	Comentário
	A translingual approach to language learning
	L2 acquisition or learning?
	Conteúdo interativo
	Follow the thread
	What is L2?
	Conteúdo interativo
	SLA and biligualism.
	Conteúdo interativo
	Language Learning or Language acquisition?
	Conteúdo interativo
	Learning Check
	Question 1
	Question 2
	3. Conclusão
	Considerações finais
	Podcast
	Conteúdo interativo
	Go Further
	References