First Language Acquisition 1

1 Introduction
Unlike any other communication system, the human language contains a vocabulary
of tens of thousands of words consisting of several dozen speech sounds. A speaker
of any language has the ability to use words and build an infinite amount of phrases
when communicating with others (Jackendoff 2006, 2). What is most remarkable is
that children develop the complex system of language in a matter of two to five
years (Jackendoff 1994, 103). For instance, three year old children can build and
understand complex sentences and master the sound system of their native
language without any direct instruction (O‘Grady 2008, vi). Herein lies the mystery of
language acquisition; how is it that children know so much in so little time? To
answer that question, the present thesis argues how children acquire language
based on Noam Chomsky’s innateness hypothesis. Particularly to question if there
is an innate mechanism in children’s minds that aids the acquisition of language.
Although there are other readings on Chomsky’s hypothesis, my focus is on the
connection between the development of certain brain structures and children’s
language acquisition. More importantly, my argument is that children’s language
development, along with the development of certain brain structures, seem to
demonstrate that children have an innate ability for language acquisition.
Research concerning how children acquire language has been cause for
debate, particularly among American psychologists. In 1957, Burrhus Frederick
Skinner wrote Verbal Behavior Analysis and suggested that children learn language
through interaction with the environment (Skinner 1957). These interactions occur
through principles of conditioning such as stimulus, association response and
reinforcement (Skinner 1957 30, 32). In 1959, Noam Chomsky challenged B.F.
Skinner’s theory (Chomsky 1959). Chomsky argued that children could not learn all
they needed to learn about language without having an innate ability to acquire
language. Chomsky’s studies led him to the Innateness Hypothesis a theory that
describes how children’s knowledge of language is inborn (as cited by Jackendoff
1994, 35). Since then language acquisition studies have focused on the
psychological part of language development and less on social influences.
However, the question of how children acquire language is still a subject of
debate and linguists still argue on how much of language is learned and how much
is innate. Therefore, in order to determine if children’s knowledge of language is
innate,
 First Language Acquisition 2

the following chapters start with a discussion of Chomsky’s Innateness Hypothesis.

Next, criticism of Chomsky’s hypothesis is analyzed and scholars such as Jean
Piaget (Piaget & Chomsky 2004), Michael Tomasello (2000), Johan Bybee (2010)
and Hilary Putnam (as cited by Hakuta 1981) are discussed. Section 3 discusses a
wide range of evidence that supports Chomsky’s theory. First, this thesis presents
studies that demonstrate the connection between children’s first language
acquisition and brain development. Then, the development stages infants go
through and the critical period for language acquisition are discussed. Afterwards,
Chomsky’s theory is summarized along with a suggestion of which parts of children’s
language acquisition appear to be innate and which appear to be learned. Section 4
presents the concluding paragraph of the present thesis. Consequently, the purpose
is to demonstrate that despite criticism, Chomsky’s hypothesis remains the leading
hypothesis underlying first language acquisition.
 First Language Acquisition 3

4.1 First Language Acquisition

Dardjowidjojo (2008: 225) stated that the process of the child begins to recognize
verbal communication with its environment is called language acquisition of children. The
term used for the acquisition of British counterpart of the term acquisition, namely the
process of language acquisition by children naturally when he learns his native language
(native language).
Firthermore Sofa (2008) proposed that there were two notions about language
acquisition. First, the beginning of language acquisition has a squally, suddenly. Second,
language acquisition to have a gradual beginning that emerged from the achievements of
motoric, social, and cognitive pralinguistik.
Meanwhile, acccording to Syafrizal (2014: 8), first language acquisition is the
study of the process through which learners acquire languge. First language acquisition
studies the infant’s acquisition of their native language, whereas second languge
acquisition deals with acquisition with additional languages in both children and adults.
First language acquisition occurs when a child who from the beginning without the
language has acquired language. During the language acquisition of children, more
children leads to the communication function rather than form of the language. Child
language acquisition can be said to have the characteristics of continuity, have a
continuum, moving from simple one-word utterance into a more complicated combination
of words. Language acquisition is closely related to cognitive development, namely, first,
if the child is able to produce utterances which, based on the grammar which are neat,
does not automatically imply that the child has mastered the relevant languages well.
Second, the speaker must obtain the cognitive categories that underlie the various
meanings expressive natural languages.
During the first language acquisition, Syafrizal (2014: 27-29) also proposes four
main stages which occur when a child acquire his first language as follow:
1. Pre-speech: Much of importance goes on even before the child utters his first
word: infants learn to pay attention to speech, pays attention to intonation and the
rhythm of speech long before they begin to speak. Infants respond to speech more
keenly than to other sounds. Speech elicits greater electrical activity in the left side of
the 2 month old infant's brain than do other sounds. Experiment with microphone and
nipple showed that infants suck more vigorously if the action triggers a human voice as
opposed to music or other sounds.
Child learn to recognize the distinctive sounds, the phonemes of the language they hear
from birth long before they are able to pronounce them. Infants can distinguish
between /p/ and /b/ at three or four months (in an experiment with /ba/ played vs. /pa/,
a two month infant showed awareness of the change). But children do not learn how to
use these sounds until much later-- around the second year or later--as shown by the
experiment with /pok/ and /bok/. The same is true for rising vs. falling intonation, which
only becomes systematically funtional much later. Infants know the difference
 First Language Acquisition 4

between one language and another by recognition of phonological patterns (Story of

the Russian fairy tale book.)
2. Babbling stage. Begins at several months of age. Characterized by indiscriminate
utterance of speech sounds-- many of which may not be used in the given language
but are found in other languages-- clicks. Many native speech sounds may be absent-
- some are naturally harder to pronounce-- /r/ /th/. Very few consonant clusters and
repeated syllables are common.
3. One word (holophrastic) stage. Infants may utter their first word as early as nine
months: usually mama, dada (these words resemble babbling). Deaf babies whose
parents use sign language begin making their first word/gestures around eight
months. This stage is characterized by the production of actual speech signs. Often
the words are simplified: "du" for duck, "ba" for bottle. When the child has acquired
about 50 words he develops regular pronunciation patterns. This may even distort
certain words-- turtle becomes "kurka". Incorrect pronunciations are systematic at this
time: all words with /r/ are pronounced as /w/. sick--thick, thick--fick. Children tend to
perceive more phonemic contrasts than they are able to produce themselves.
The first 50 words tend to be names of important persons, greetings, foods, highlights
of the daily routine such as baths, ability to change their environment-give, take, go, up,
down, open.
The meaning of words may not correspond to that of adult language:
overextension-- dog may mean any four legged creature. apple may mean any
round object. bird may mean any flying object. Child can still distinguish between the
differences, simply hasn't learned that they are linguistically meaningful. Dissimilarities
linguistically redundant.
Two patterns in child word learning—
referential-- names of objects.
expressive-- personal desires and social interactions: bye-bye, hi, good, This is a
continuum. Child's place on this continuum partly due to parent's style: naming vs.
pointing.
The extra-linguistic context provides much of the speech info. Rising and falling
intonation may or may not be used to distinguish questions from statements at the one-
word stage. Words left out if the contexts makes them obvious. At this stage, utterances
show no internal grammatical structure (much like the sentence yes in adult speech,
which can't be broken down into subject, predicate, etc.)
4. Combining words-- 18 mo--2 years. By two and a half years most children speak in
sentences of several words--but their grammar is far from complete. This stage rapidly
progresses into what has been termed a fifth and final stage of language acquisition,
the All hell breaks loose stage. By six the child's grammar approximates that of
adults.
 First Language Acquisition 5

Children learning any language seem to encode the same limited set of meanings in
their first sentences:
ownership-- Daddy's shoes; describing events-- Me fall; labeling-- That dog; locational
relations-- toy in box.
Sentences usually two words. Children can repeat more complex sentences spoken
by adults but cannot create them until later (called prefabricated routines) not indicative of
the child's grammar.
4.1.1 Characteristics and Traits 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 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. (https://www.uni-due.de/ELE/LanguageAcquisition.htm)

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.

4.2 Social Aspects of Interlanguage

4.2.1 Interlanguage as a Stylistic Continuum
Tarone in Ellis (1997: 37), has proposed that interlanguage involves a stylistic
continuum. She argues that learners develop a capability for using the L2 and that this
underlies all regular behavior. This capability, which constitutes ‘an abstract linguistic
system’, is comprised of a number of different ‘style’ which learners access in accordance
with a variety of factors. At the end of the continuum is the careful style, evident when
 First Language Acquisition 6

learners are consciously attending to their choice of linguistic forms, as when they feel the
need to be ‘correct’. At the other end of the continuum is the vernacular style, evident
when learners are making spontaneous choices of linguistic form, as is likely in free
conversation.
Collect samples of spoken English form a number of Japanese learners over a
period of time and under different conditions of language use-free speech, reading a
dialogue =, and reading lists of isolated words. One study found Japanese learners
produced /z/ most accurately when reading isolated words and least accurate in free
speech. This study also showed that over time he learners improved their ability to use /z/
accurately in their careful style to a much greater extent than in their vernacular style.
Tarone herself has acknowledged the model also has a number of problems.
First, later research has shown that learners are not always most accurate in their careful
style and least accurate in their vernacular style. L2 speakers show greatest accuracy in
the vernacular style, for example, when a specific grammatical feature is of special
importance for conveying a particular meaning in conversation.
A second problem is that the role of social factors remains unclear. Style-shifting
among native speakers reflects the social group they belong to.
Another theory , the theory of stylistic variation but which is more obviously social
is Howard Gile’s accommodation theory. The seeks to explain how learner’s social
group influences the course of L2 acquisition. When people interact with each other they
either try to make their speech similar to that of their addressee in order to emphasize
social cohesiveness or to make it different in order to emphasize their social
distinctiveness.
Accommodation theory suggests that social factors, mediated through the
interactions that learners take part in, influence both how quickly they learn and the actual
route that they follow.
4.2.2 The Acculturation Model of L2 Acquisition
A similar perspective on the role of social factors in L2 acquisition can be found in
John Schumann’s acculturation model.
Acculturation is the way people adapt to a new culture. The Schumann theory on
acculturation is mainly based on the social factors experienced by those learning English
as their second language within the mainstream culture. The factors determine the social
distance between the second language learner and the mainstream culture in which they
are living in. this distance between the learners and the mainstream culture in turn
determine the rate of language acquisition. Schumann states that “the degree to which a
learner acculturates to the target language group will control the degree to which he
acquires the second language”.
There are several social factors that Schumann accounts for the rate of second
language acquisition:
1. Limited integration of cultural groups
 First Language Acquisition 7

2. Size of minority group-the group is more self-sufficient the larger they are
3. How tight-knit the group is
4. The variance of characteristics between their culture and the mainstream culture
5. Majority groups attitude towards the minority group
6. Language learner expects to stay a short time in the country
7. Motivation, culture shock and attitude of language learner
8. Language learner and mainstream culture both view each other as equal
9. Language learner and mainstream culture both desire assimilation

Definition: According to Schumann in Ushioda (1993), there is a taxonomy of eight

factors which control social distance that determine how close an individual will come to
becoming like the TL group:
1. Dominance/subordination: Relating to the perceive status of a group in relation
to another.
2. Integration pattern: Assimilation (giving up your own lifestyle in favor of another)
/acculturation/preservation (how much of your own culture you hold on to),
3. Degree of enclosure of both groups: Amount that the L2 group share the same
social facilities (low enclosure), or have different social facilities (high enclosure).
4. Degree of cohesiveness of 2LL group: intra group contacts (cohesive), or inter
group contacts (non-cohesive)
5. Size of 2LL,
6. Degree of congruence of the two cultures: The culture of the L2 group may be
similar or different to the TL group.
7. Inter-group attitudinal evaluations: Positive or negative attitudes to each other.
8. Intended length of residence of 2LL group members: Whether the L2 group
intends to stay a long time or a short time.

Schumann in Ushioda (1993) lists five affective factors that may increase the
psychological distance:
1. Language Shock: Disorientation caused by learning a new linguistic system.
2. Culture Shock: Stress, anxiety and fear caused when entering a new culture, the
routines activities suddenly become major obstacles.
3. Culture Stress: Prolonged culture shock, such as, homesickness, and questioning
self identity.
4. Motivation: Instrumental and integrative.
5. Ego permeability: The amount in which an individual gives up their differences in
favor of the TL group.
4.2.3 Social Identity and Investment in L2 Learning
Bonny Peirce has two views about the relationship between social context and L2
acquisition:
 First Language Acquisition 8

1. The notions of “subject to” and “subject of” are central.

She has studied an adult immigrant learner of English in Canada named Eva.
The girl which is working with me pointed at the man and said:
‘Do you see him?’ – I said
‘Yes. Why?’
‘Don’t you know him?’
‘No. I don’t know him.’
‘How come you don’t know him? Don’t you watch TV? That’s Bart
Simpson.’
It made me so bad and I didn’t answer her nothing.
The theory of social identity assumes that power relations play a crucial role in
social interaction between language learners and target language speakers. Eva
indicated she had felt humiliated at the time. She said that she could not respond to the
girl because she had been positioned as a “strange woman”. What had made Eva feel
strange? The girl’s questions to Eva were in fact rhetorical. She didn’t expect, or possibly
even desire a response from Eva: “How come you don’t know him? Don’t you watch TV?
That’s Bart Simpson.” It was the girl and Eva who could determine the grounds on which
interaction could proceed, it were them who had the power to bring closure to the
conversation.
Eva became subject to a discourse which assumed an identity she didn’t have.
She was also the subject of the discourse had she attempted to continue on which the
interaction could proceed, for example, by asserting that she didn’t watch the TV program
of which Bart Simpson was the star.
2. Language learners have complex social identities
Peirce argues that language learners have complex social identities that only be
understood in terms of the power relation that shape social structures. A learner’s social
identity is ‘multiple and contradictory’. Investment is required for learners to construct an
identity that enables them to get their right to be heard and become the subject of the
discourse. It is something learners will only make if they believe their effort will increase
the value of their “cultural capital”.
Successful learners are those who reflect critically on how they engage with native
speakers and who are prepared to challenge the accepted social order by constructing
and asserting social identities of their own choice.

4.1 Discourse Aspects of Interlanguage

The study of learner discourse in SLA has been informed by two rather different
goals. On the one hand there have been attempts to discover howL2 learners acquire to
‘rules’ of discourse that inform native-speaker language use. On the other hand, a
number of researchers have sought to show how interaction shapes interlanguage
development.
 First Language Acquisition 9

1. Acquiring discourse rules

There are rules or at least, regularities in the ways in which native speakers hold
conversation. In the United States, for example, a compliment usually calls for a response
and failure to provide one can be considered sociolinguistic error. Furthermore, in
American English compliment responses are usually quite elaborate, involving some
attempt on the part of the speaker to play down the compliment by making some
unfavourable comment.
However, L2 learners behave differently. Sometimes they fail to respond to a
compliment at all. At other times they produce bare responses
There is growing body of research investigating learner discourse. This show that,
to some extent at least, the acquisition of discourse rules, like tha acquisition of
grammatical rules, is systematic, reflecting both distinct types of errors and
developmental sequences.
2 The role of input and interaction in L2 acquisition
A number of rather different theoretical positions can be identified. A behaviourist
view trearts language learning as environmentally determined, controlled from the outside
by the stimuli learners are exposed to and the reinforcement they receive. In contrast,
mentalist theories emphasize the importance of the learner’s ‘black box’. They maintain
that learners’ brains are especially equipped to learn language and all that is needed is
minimal exposure to input in order to trigger acquisition. Interactionist theories of L2
acquisition acknowledge the importance of both input and internal language processing.
Learning takes place as a result of complex interaction between the linguistic environment
and the leraners’ internal mechanisms.
Two types of foreigner talk:
1. Ungrammatically foreigner talk
It is socially marked. If often implies a lack of respect on the part of the native
speaker and can be resented by learners. It is characterized by the deletion of certain
grammatical features such as copula be , modal verbs and articles, the use of the base
form of the verb in place of the past tense form, and the use of special constructions such
as ‘no + verb’.
2. Grammatical foreigner talk
It is the norm. various types of modification of baseline talk can be identified:
 First, grammatical foreign talk is delivered at a slower pace.
 Second, the input is simplified.
 Third, grammatical foreigner talk is sometimes regularized.
 Fourth, foreigner talk sometimes consist of elaborated language use
According to Stephen Krashen’s input hypothesis, L2 acquisition takes place when
a learner understands input that contains grammatical forms that í + I’. Karenshen
suggests that the right level of input is attained automatically when interlocutors succed in
making themselves understood in communication. Success is achieved by using the
 First Language Acquisition 10

situational context to make messages clear and through the kinds of input modifications
found in foreigner talk.
Michael Long’s interaction hypothesis also emphasizes the importance of comprehensible
input but claims that it is most effective when it is modified through the negotiation of
meaning.
Another perspective on the relationship between discourse and L2 acquisition is
provided by Evelyn Hatch. Hatch emphasizes the collaborative endeavours of the
learners and their interlocutures can grow out of the process of bulding discourse.
Other SLA theorist have drawn on the theories of L.S. Vygotsky, a Russian
psychologist, to explain how interaction serves as the bedrock of acquisition. The two key
constructs in what is known as activity theory’, based on vygotsky’s ideas, are ‘motive’
and ‘internalization’.
 First, concerns the active way in which individuals define the goals of an activity for
themselves by deciding what to attend to and what not to attend to.
 Second, concerns how a novice comes to solve a problem with the assistance of an
‘expert’. Who provides ‘scaffolding’, and then internalizes the solution.
Vygotsky argues that children learn through interpersonal activity, such as play
with adults, whereby they form concepts that would be beyond them if they were acting
alone. In other word, zones of proximal development are created through interaction with
more knowledgeable others. Subsequently, the child learn how to control a concept
without the assistance of others.

3. The role of output in l2 acquisition

Here we find conflicting opinion:
1) Krashen argues that ‘speaking is the result of acquisition not its cause’. He claims that
the only way learners can learn from their output is by treating is as auto-input. In
efeect, Krashen is refuting the cherished belief of many teachers that languages are
learned by practicing them.
2) Merrill Swain has argued that comprehensible output also plays in L2 acquisition. She
suggests a number of specific ways in which learners can learn from their own output:
 First, output can serve a consciousness – raising function by helping learners to
notice gaps in their interlanguages.
 Second, output helps learners to test hypotheses.
 Third, learners sometimes talk about their own output, identifying problems with it
and discussing ways in which they can be put right.
 First Language Acquisition 11

CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION
1. In general, first languge acquisition is defined as a process of children in acquiring
and learning his native languge for the first time from he was born. First language
acquisition includes four main stages in the process of its occurence: Pre-speeech,
babbling stage, one word stage, and combining word stage, which in outline, the
characteristics and traits of first language acquisition are: It is an instinct; It is very
rapid; It is very complete; And it does not require instruction.

Chomsky, N. ( 2009). Cartesian Linguistics: A Chapter in the History of Rationalist

Thought (third edition).Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
Clark, E.V. (2009). First Language Acquisition(second edition).Cambridge :
Cambridge University Press.
Crain, S., & Lillo-Martin, D. (1999). An Introduction to Linguistic Theory and
Language Acquisition. Oxford : Blackwell Publishing.
Dardjowidjojo, Soenjono. (2008). Psikolinguistik Pengantar Pemahaman Bahasa
Manusia. Jakarta: Yayasan Obor Indonesia.
Ellis, Rod. (1997). Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Larsen-Freeman, Diane and Michael H. Long. (1991). An Introduction to Second
Language Acquisition Research. New York: Longman.
Lieven, E.V.M. (1994 ). Crosslinguistic and Crosscultural aspects of Language
addressed to children . In C. Gallaway & B.J . Richards,( Eds.) Input and
Interaction in Language Acquisition. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
Opitz, Cornelia. (2011). First Languge Attrition and Second Language Aquisition in a
Second Languge Environment. University of Dublin: Trinity College.
Piaget, J. (1990). The child's conception of the world. New York: Littlefield Adams
Pinker, S. ( 1994). The language Instinct. England: Clays Ltd.
Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Syafrizal. (2014). TEFL (Teaching English as a Foreign Language). Serang: Untirta
Press.
Warren, J. (2012). The Cognitive Learning Theory. Retrieved from
http:/jwar.edublogs.org/2012/07/11/the-cognitive-learning-theory.
Wilburg, V. (2010). Cognitive Learning Theory. Retrieved from
http://www.slideshare.net/Kholokha/cognitivelearning-theory-5953309
Wyatt, G.L. (1969). Language Learning and Communication Disorders in Children. New
York: The Free Press.

https://www.uni-due.de/ELE/LanguageAcquisition.html