A Study on the Process of First and Second Language Acquisition
Gillian Toomey
Humans are wired to speak a language. Language is our primary source of communication with other humans, and without it our species could never have made the technological, societal, and evolutional advancements that we have thus far. Human languages are unique from animal communication systems in their complexity; human language has creative and productive properties that animal communication systems even at their most advanced do not possess. There are thousands of languages actively spoken across the world, some with hundreds of speakers and some with several millions. Great deals of people in the world are bilingual, even trilingual in some cases. Some learn multiple languages naturally through exposure in childhood, and others acquire additional languages at an older age using other methods. The reasons for picking up languages other than your native tongue are countless, and the answer to the question of why to learn them will differ for every individual. However, it’s true for every person that there are significant advantages for bilingualism in our modern world, so often the motivation to speak more than one language is high. Motivation, however, is only a portion of the battle. Learning a language in adulthood is anything but an easy feat, and it often takes individuals anywhere from months to years to come close to fluency. Production of a language is one of the most difficult parts of language learning, and it seems, at least from personal experience and the accounts from other language learners around me, that it takes more effort than it does to understand a language. It is a relatively common belief that comprehension precedes production, but how much empirical truth does that statement really hold?
In the world of linguistic research, opposing hypotheses exist specifically on this subject. Some hypotheses claim that comprehension precedes production in language acquisition, while others argue that these processes are inherently linked and therefore develop simultaneously. One of the leading hypotheses in the argument towards comprehension driven acquisition is Stephen Krashen’s Input Theory. This theory claims “we acquire more language only when we are exposed to comprehensible input that is a little beyond our current level of competence.” (Solé, 1994) It follows the assumption that in order to properly produce language, a child or an adult learner must first understand a language to a certain extent. Other evidence to back up this assertion comes from studies on the flexibility of comprehension over production. By flexibility in this context it is meant that we are able to understand “speech we cannot mimic, words we do not use, structures we cannot reproduce, and verbal art we cannot create ourselves.” (Straight, 1976) It has been observed both in children acquiring a first language and in adults learning a second that people seem to be able to pick up on and interpret language structures and vocabulary much more advanced than current competence demonstrates. This parsing of information may be in part due to a listener’s ability to use nonlinguistic cues such as context both environmentally and socially. (Gathercole, 1988) However the use of these cues to decipher language does not necessarily negate the actual comprehension, as the meaning of the utterance is still extracted at a basic level.
Although there is evidence for the Input Theory and comprehension preceding production in terms of first and second language acquisition, there is also much evidence to counter this argument as well. Clark Et Al (1974) argue the “comprehension” that researchers observe in children during acquisition isn’t necessarily comprehension at all, but the coincidence of an appropriate response that may have occurred due to other circumstances in the situation. In essence, these researchers claim that children’s “correct” responses to an adult’s inquiries may not be because of true understanding, rather merely a positive coincidence. While this argument is mostly hypothetic, other researchers offer evidence in studies of second language acquisition. Wilga Rivers (1986) explains that listeners of a language must recognize and interpret speech that occurs with varying levels of speed, timbre, or surrounding noise. “They [also] need to be able to understand what is half expressed or left to inference and interpretation.” (Rivers, 1986) These elements of comprehension are complex and sophisticated, and rely on the recognition of various syntactic and semantic properties of speech. Theorists such as Krashen claim that through this process, the ability to produce a second language will come on its own with time, however as Rivers counters, many experiments that focus strictly on comprehension fail to display results of this effortless ability to produce language as a result of these skills.
If neither comprehension nor production definitively comes first, then how do these mechanisms line up in the process of first or second language acquisition? The most feasible and readily accepted explanation is that these processes are inherently linked. In order to develop a deeper grasp of this concept, it is important to study the neural processes behind them. Studying dysphasia, or language disorders resulting from brain damage due to trauma or inheritance, has proven that language processes occur primarily in the left hemisphere of the cerebral cortex. (Straight, 1976) When damage occurs to a part of the brain, it typically affects very specific aspects of our neurological functions. Through examining these damages scientists are able to attribute certain processes to a specific part of the brain. Dysphasiacs who experience deficits in their productive and expressive abilities often have damage to the Broca’s area of their brain, the frontal region of the cortex. On the other hand, dysphasiacs who encounter impairments to their comprehension have experienced damage to the Wernicke’s area of their brain, the central region of the cortex. (Straight, 1976) While comprehension and production clearly occur in distinct areas of the brain, one doesn’t decidedly precede the other, but instead influences and builds upon its counterpart. For example, Straight (1976) reports that research suggests the “productional aspect (Broca’s area) is to a great extent dependent upon the comprehensional aspect (Wernicke’s area).” Evidence for this lies in the finding in dysphasiacs where damage to the Broca’s area not only inhibits the ability to comprehend input, but also affects one’s productive competence. Additional researchers back up the claims of this interaction by asserting that production and comprehension draw upon shared representations; that is, they draw from a single lexicon for both processes. (Pickering & Garrod, 2014) In a conversation taking place in real time, a person must rapidly switch between production and comprehension with little to no delay – a feat which could take much longer if these processes were not “coupled” in some fashion to call upon some of the same neural pathways.
To conclude, upon deeper exploration into the specifics of production and comprehension in first and second language acquisition, research suggests that neither of these two processes can necessarily be proven as coming before the other. The answer to this inquiry is in fact much more complex. Previous research and experience have pointed to the assertion that comprehension comes more naturally than production, however through further experimentation and neurological examination it can be concluded that these two processes are indeed linked and therefore contingent on one another. As Pickering & Garrod (2014) claim, “processes primarily associated with production can be recruited to assist comprehension, and processes primarily associated with comprehension can be recruited to assist production.” Neither one of these abilities is an isolated act, and through the advancement of both mechanisms one can improve upon his or her linguistic competence to the full potential.
References
Clark, R., Sandy Hutcheson, & Paul Van Buren. (1974). Comprehension and Production in Language Acquisition. Journal of Linguistics, 10(1), 39-54. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.libproxy.unh.edu/stable/4175227
Gathercole, V. (1988). Some Myths You May Have Heard about First Language Acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 22(3), 407-435. doi:10.2307/3587287
Pickering, M., & Garrod, S. (2014). Neural integration of language production and comprehension. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(43), 15291-15292. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.libproxy.unh.edu/stable/43190040
Rivers, W. (1986). Comprehension and Production in Interactive Language Teaching. The Modern Language Journal, 70(1), 1-7. doi:10.2307/328061
Solé, Y. (1994). THE INPUT HYPOTHESIS AND THE BILINGUAL LEARNER. Bilingual Review / La Revista Bilingüe, 19(2), 99-110. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.libproxy.unh.edu/stable/25745211
Straight, H. (1976). Comprehension versus Production in Linguistic Theory. Foundations of Language, 14(4), 525-540. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.libproxy.unh.edu/stable/25170086