Teach English in Qiji Zhen - Liaocheng Shi

Language is widely considered to be one of humanities most potent cognitive tools. From a finite set of grammatical structures, a nearly infinite set of semantic meanings may be produced. Therefore, this tool is integral in both the small-scale and large-scale behavioral organization of humankind. It allows equal possibility to build and sustain complex interpersonal relationships and vast metropolises that span the entire breadth of this planet. Through historical happenstance, English has become the premier language of contemporary global technological, commercial and cultural/entertainment industries. As such, there is an incredible demand for learning this language. As of 2014, there was an estimated one billion active English language learners, with projections of nearly 1.9 billion active learners world wide by 2020 (TESOL 2014). Because of this, an understanding of the differences between first-language (L1) acquisition and second-language (L2) acquisition is integral. Based on empirical evidence it appears that the ease and mastery of L2 acquisition is impacted greatly by the age of onset of acquisition of the L2 language. Furthermore, younger learners may find certain aspects of L2 acquisition to be easier than their older colleagues. The L1 of an individual is generally considered to be the primary language learned in childhood that is also the official language of that individuals native country (Love & Ansaldo 2010). This is a general definition however, as many children are born to parents who may be multilingual themselves or are recent immigrants to the country they currently live. Therefore, there is a degree of disagreement within the linguistics community as to the definitive definition of L1. For the purposes of this paper, the definition above will be attenuated such that the L1 of an individual is the first language learned solely in childhood, irrespective of the official language of that child’s home country. L2 is therefore defined as the language acquired by an individual which is extra to the L1 of that individual. Of the nearly two billion active English L2 learners today, there exists a spectrum of ages of learners, from young to old. Evidence shows that certain aspects of language acquisition may be more difficult for older learners than younger learners. A study conducted by Omaya (1976) showed that adult learners of an L2 language were much more likely to speak that language with a discernable foreign accent relative to child L2 learners, even when the adult learner had a masterful grasp of the L2 languages grammar structures and children did not. Other observational studies have considered language acquisition in so-called feral children. A feral child is one who spent a significant amount of their critical childhood years in isolation from human contact. As such, these children lack the environmental impetus for language acquisition. These people who later attempt to learn a language outside of their childhood years may be able to acquire some basic language skills but are never able to achieve full mastery of any given language (Tartter 1998). This and similar information suggests that there is something specific about being young which aids a person in the acquisition of language. Therefore, the Critical Period Hypothesis (CPH) was created. CPH posits that there is an ideal period of time in an individuals life where language acquisition is primed, and language learning outside of this critical period becomes exponentially difficult, although of course not impossible (Singleton 2005). Various supporting arguments exist for this hypothesis. It is known that synaptic neuroplasticity is greatest in childhood (Singleton 2005). Synaptic neuroplasticity is related to learning of any kind, as it is the result of changes in the three-dimensional cortical structure of the brain that allows for learning to occur in a biological sense. It follows that if the greatest degree of plasticity exists in childhood, than the time period with the greatest capacity to absorb a new language would correspond with this aspect of human biology. Further arguments for CPH are found in examinations of the linguistic Universal Grammar Theory (UGT), often attributed to Chomsky. UGT posits that human children are born with an innate ability to produce grammatical structures contingent on the existence of external cues and information (Kliesch 2012). An interesting supportive argument is seen in the conversion of Pidgin languages to a creole languages. A pidgin language is an incomplete language, usually born out of a necessity to communicate by individuals of different cultural backgrounds who are suddenly found to be in the same area, i.e. migrant workers, etc. However, the children born to these people speaking a pidgin language are able to take the external information in the form of the grammatically incomplete pidgin language and produce an entirely grammatically complete creole language (Kliesch 2012). This shows that children have an innate ability to acquire, and in some cases invent, language structures. In conclusion, evidence suggests that young L2 learners may be at a distinct advantage with regard to L2 acquisition over their older peers. Adult L2 learners may be better able to understand new cognitively advanced language structures but they lack the implicit language abilities found in chivg7ldren as mediated by the CPH. As well, children may have an innate ability to create and absorb grammar structures as attributed to UGT. With this information, it is clear that the earlier an individual is able to begin the L2 acquisition process, the easier time they will have to gain mastery in that L2 language over the long term. References Kliesch, C. (2012). Making sense of syntax—innate or acquired? Contrasting universal grammar with other approaches to language acquisition. PsycEXTRA Dataset. Doi:10.1037/e537242013-009 Love, N., & Ansaldo, U. (2010). The native speaker and the mother tongue. Language Sciences, 32(6), 589-593. Doi:10.1016/j.langsci.2010.09.003 Oyama, S. (1976). A sensitive period for the acquisition of a nonnative phonological system. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 5(3), 261-283. Doi:10.1007/bf01067377 Singleton, D. (2005). The Critical Period Hypothesis: A coat of many colours. IRAL – International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 43(4), 269-285. Doi:10.1515/iral.2005.43.4.269 Tartter, V. C. (1998). Language processing in atypical populations. Thousand Oaks: Sage.