LEARNING A SECOND AND

THIRD LANGUAGE AT
HOME AND AT SCHOOL
Presented by: Ahmad Altheyab
 Introduction

1. Lambert (1975) made an important distinction between two types

of bilingualism. Lambert noted that in certain conditions the
learning of a second language (L2) had no negative impact on the
maintenance of the mother tongue (L1) and that this type of
bilingualism could lead to positive cognitive consequences. This
was referred to as additive bilingualism.
2. Lambert also noted that in other conditions, the learning of L2 led
to less efficient L1 acquisition, a subtractive type of bilingualism
which could be related negative cognitive consequences.
 Early Bilingualism

 The earliest possible chance to learn two languages is to start at birth.

1) Simultaneous acquisition: is to learn two or sometimes more
languages at the same time at age three or before that.
2) Sequential acquisition: occurs when a second or a foreign language
is learnt after the first language is already established (usually after
the age of three).
◦ For example: In mixed nationality marriage, one parent may use
French with a children while the other parent uses English only.
Suzanne Romaine, a well-known researcher in the area of bilingual
studies, refers to this as the ‘one person one language’ scenario
(1995).
 Children phases

◦ Year 1 and 2: mixing the languages of L1 and L2.

◦ Around 3 years: Start to sperate the two languages.
 Some researchers consider years 3 is truly bilingual stage.
However, when and to what extent this happens also
depends on social factors:
1. Which parents attract the child’s attention
2. Children’s attitude to acquire the two languages.
3. The amount of input.
 The effect of age (Critical period
Hypothesis)
◦ There is a critical period for first as well as second language acquisition shows
children have great advantage over adults or adolescents. This critical period is
used to refer to the general phenomenon of declining competence over increasing
age of exposure. This hypothesis was first introduced by Penfield and Roberts
(1959) (cited in Herschensohn, 2007).
◦ As well, Ellis observes that there is the period when language acquisition can take
place naturally and efficiently, but after a certain age the brain is no longer able to
process language in this way (1986: 107). This critical period is defined by Scovel
(1988, p.2).
◦ Krashen proposed in 1973 that human's brain lateralization can be finished in the
age of five (cited in Herschensohn, 2007). And later, Lamendella (1977) argued that
period was too much exaggerated and he used the term "sensitive period" for
"lateralization", which states that the possibility of learning a language well may
also occur after 5 years old (cited in Singleton and Ryan, 2004).
 Is younger better
 Morford and Mayberry (2000, p. 111) note “individuals exposed to language at
earlier ages consistently outperform individuals exposed to language at earlier
ages for first and second languages of both signed and spoken languages”. This
assumption agrees that people will perform well in language learning at their
early age. This is the hypothesis for “the younger the better” position.
 A second consistent finding is that older starters have a faster rate of learning
at the beginning stages of the learning process, particularly for morpho-
syntactic acquisition (see Krashen et al. 1979).
The study by Snow and HoefnagelHöhle (1978) provides very clear evidence
of these trends in the comparison of different age groups of L1-English
learners of Dutch in the Netherlands. after approximately one year the older
children surpassed adults and adolescents, and the expectation was that the
younger children would also eventually surpass the other groups.
Is older better
◦ Ekstrand reveals that L2 learning ability ‘improves with age’ (Ekstrand
1976, p. 130). In Harley’s research, he favors the faster acquisition rate
among later beginners (1986, p. 112). Therefore, we can get the point
that older learners are the efficient language learner. However, another
evidence from Snow and Hoefnagel-Hohle (1978) supports the view
that most children were ultimately more successful than adults in SLA,
but they were not always faster. Adults appear to progress faster than
children in the early stage of processing, while children surpass adults
and adolescents in eventual attainment (Dulay & Burt, pp. 94-95).
Based on this view, it can be observed that it is the supportive view for
“the younger the better in the long run”.
Learning a second language in the
playground and at school
 There is a distinction between home language use and school language
use. The research summarized by Cummins shows that it takes much
longer to catch up with the academic language skills necessary for
successful participation in school discourse than with informal
conversations. It may take as long as five to seven years before
children reach academic levels comparable to those of native speakers
of the language. Cummins' findings also suggest that bilingual
education can be very beneficial for children with regard to their
general development, cognitive, metacognitive, and other skills.
Integrated second language learning

◦ Rhonda Oliver and her colleagues in Australia, interested in

children's second language acquisition, conducted an
interesting study in 2003. They investigated the language
use of immigrant children who were already proficient in
English. These children were considered not to need any
more ESL support as they were fully integrated into the
curriculum. The study shows that they still had
significantly lower levels of acquisition of Australian terms
than their native speaker peers.
Learning English as a foreign
language
 In many other contexts in the world, however, when
children start learning English, they are not immersed
English environment and they are not learning English to
make friends or fit into a new school and culture. They are
learning English as a school subject in addition math's,
science, and other timetabled subjects.
 Introducing children to a new language offers
opportunities to widen their horizons and awaken their
early enthusiasm and curiosity about languages.
Thank you
◦ References:
◦ MacLeod, A. A., Fabiano-Smith, L., Boegner-Pagé, S., & Fontolliet, S. (2013). Simultaneous bilingual language
acquisition: The role of parental input on receptive vocabulary development. Child Language Teaching &
Therapy, 29(1), 131–142. https://doi-org.sdl.idm.oclc.org/10.1177/0265659012466862
◦ De Houwer A (2007) Parental language input patterns and children’s bilingual use. Applied Psycholinguistics 28:
411–442.
◦ Gathercole VCM and Thomas EM (2009) Bilingual first-language development: Dominant language takeover,
threatened minority language take-up. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 12: 213–237.
◦ Scovel, D. (2001). Learning New Languages: a guide to a second language acquisition. New York: Newbury House.
◦ Ellis, R. (1986). Understanding Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
◦ Herschensohn, J. (2007). Language Development and Age. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
◦ Scovel, T. (1988). A critical review of the critical period research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 20, 213–
223.
◦ Penfield, W. and L. Roberts. (1959). Speech and brain mechanism. New York: Atheneum.
◦ Lamendella, T. (1977). General principles of neuro-functional organization and their manifestation in primary and
non-primary language acquisition. Language Learning, 27(1), 155-196.
◦ Morford, J. and R. Mayberry. (2000). A reexamination of ‘‘early exposure’’ and its implications for language
acquisition by eye. In C. Chamberlain, J. Morford and R. Mayberry (eds), Language Acquisition by Eye. Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
◦ Snow, Catherine & Marian Hoefnagel-Höhle. 1978. The critical period for language acquisition: Evidence from
second language learning. Child Development 49(4). 1114–1128.