1.

World of second language

Monolingual vs multilingual/bilingual:
 Monolingualism refers to the ability to use one language. (we knew it exactly)
 Multilingualism refers to the ability to use two or more languages. (let’s talk more about this term)

Ways to acquire languages:

 Successive bilingualism: learning one language after knowing another/others. Example:
 Simultaneous bilingualism: knowing two languages as the ‘first language’ (L1). Studies examine that
true simultaneous bilinguals are rare. Example:
 Receptive bilingualism: having the ability to understand a second language, but not be able to
speak (produce) it. Example:

Fact:
 studies have proven that roughly 75% of world’s population speaks two or more languages,
 Not all multilinguals/bilinguals speak two or more languages at the same level.
 Acquiring L1 differs from acquiring L2. the processes cannot be equated, nor can multilingualism be
assumed to involve simply the same knowledge and skills as monolingualism except in more than
one language. This point is made most cogently by Vivian Cook, who introduced the concept of
multilingual competence that refers to “the compound state of a mind with two [or more]
grammars”. This is distinguished from monolingual competence (or “monocompetence” in Cook’s
terminology), which refers to knowledge of only one language.
 Approximately 6,000 languages are spoken in the world, with widely varying distribution, and
almost all of them have been learned as second languages by some portion of their speakers.

2. The nature of language learning

Natural Ability
 the natural ability to acquire language in terms of innate capacity, we are saying that part of
language structure is genetically
“given” to every human child.
 Children’s ability to create new utterances is remarkable, and their ability to recognize when a
string of common words does not constitute a grammatical sentence in the language is even more
so. For example, children acquiring English L1 can recognize early on that Cookies me give is
ungrammatical. They have never been told, surely, that the particular group of words is not an
English sentence, but they somehow know, nevertheless.
 those principles above are universally “programmed” into all human children just by virtue of their
being human, and this accounts for children’s ability to process the smorgasbord of sounds and
words that they hear, and their ability to come up with essentially the same structures as other
children.
 we may view children’s language development as a gradual process of acquiring a more and more
complex set of structures and rules for combining them. Because the stages and levels of language
development can be delineated and studied, it is possible to talk about child grammar. it is possible
 to systematically describe the kinds of utterances a child can produce or understand at a given
maturational level. The differences between their grammar and that used by adults are not viewed
as failures on the part of the children, but are considered the normal output of children at that
level of development. As children mature, so do their language abilities. Since certain grammatical
processes are more complex than others, they require a higher maturational level than simpler
ones.
 Given the complexity of language, it is no wonder that even adults with their mature intellects
seldom attain native fluency in a new language. But almost all children, with their limited
memories, restricted reasoning powers, and as yet almost nonexistent analytical abilities, acquire
perfect fluency in any language to which they are adequately exposed, and in which they interact
with others.

Social Experience
 Acquiring language could not stand alone by innate capacity/natural ability.
 Children must learn all of those features which distinguish their L1 from all other possible human
languages.
 Children will never acquire such language-specific knowledge unless that language is used with
them and around them, and they will learn to use only the language(s) used around them.

3. L1 vs L2 learning
To be noted:

 L1 development – by definition – is native linguistic competence. This is a universal human

achievement, requiring no extraordinary aptitude or effort.
 L2 development – again by definition – can never be totally native linguistic competence, and the
level of proficiency which learners reach is highly variable. Some learners reach “near-native” or
“native-like” competence in L2 along with native competence in L1, but many cases at some point
to make further progress toward the learning target in response to L2 input.

ARTICLE REVIEW
Hyltenstam, K. and Abrahamsson, N. (2000), Who can become native‐like in a second language? All,
some, or none?. Studia Linguistica, 54: 150-166

WHO CAN BECOME NATIVE-LIKE IN A SECOND LANGUAGE? ALL, SOME,

OR NONE?
On the maturational constraints controversy in second language acquisition
by Kenneth Hyltenstam & Niclas Abrahamsson
It deals with Eric Lenneberg’s original and influential formulation of the CRITICAL PERIOD HYPOTHESIS
(CPH) that was linked to a foreign/second language acquisition scenario and focused on age restrictions on
the possibility of reaching native-like levels in an L2, not on age restrictions on the ability to acquire a
language in general. It can be inferred that:

 Younger language learners are ‘better’ at second language learning than older learners.
 Younger learners outperform older learners with respect to eventual outcome.
 Younger learners acquire second languages automatically from mere exposure, while older learners
have to make conscious and labored efforts.
 Younger learners can reach native-like levels of proficiency, but older learners cannot.
 The turning-point age for differences between children and adults in is around puberty.

In the other side, some studies have proven against CPH including:

 Several studies comparing younger and older learners on measures of achievement in second
language acquisition have identified an adult advantage over children (Krashen et al., 1979; Long
1990).
 Adult starters who achieve a native-like second language proficiency or native-like second language
competence exist (Birdsong, 1999).
 An age effect on ultimate attainment is not obviously linked to any specific age span, such as before
or after puberty, but has been demonstrated to be successive over the entire life-span (Birdsong,
1999).
Birdsong, D. 1999. Introduction: Whys and why nots of the critical period hypothesis for second language acquisition. Second
language acquisition and the Critical period hypothesis, ed. D. Birdsong, 1–22. Mahway, NJ: Erlbaum