Does anyone know if there's been any real research into first language acquisition in normal adult speakers?
I've seen lots of research into L1 acquisition in children and comparisons between that and L2 learning, but surely L1 acquisition in adults has a lot in common with L2 acquisition in adults as well. Possibly more, because when you think about it:
L2 acquisition in adults vs L1 acquisition in children: L2 Adult
L1 Children (no common ground in age or language)
Contrast that with these two:
L2 acquisition in children vs L1 acquisition in children: L2 Children
L1 Children (common ground in age)
L2 acquisition in adults vs L1 acquisition in adults: L2 Adult
L1 Adult (common ground in age)
I'd like to know what the effects of 'exposure alone' versus 'exposure + focus on form' versus 'exposure + productive use' are on increase and/or change in choice lexis (words, fixed expressions, discourse structures, format/layout of academic/business/specialist texts etc):
- The period of gaining a first degree.
- A period of reading multiple novels.
- A period of watching multiple TV dramas and sit-coms, etc.
- The first 3-4 years of office work.
Etc.
- Login or register to post comments
Printer-friendly version
Log in or register
Follow TeachingEnglish
 |
 |
 |
 |
There are psychological studies that have been conducted on L1 acquisition in adults, but these are usually individual case studies and rare. The rarity of such cases is understandable, of course, since most people learn their L1 as a child. There is the case of Genie, for example, who was locked up in a room with no contact or language input until she was 13 years old, and of "wolf children" who had no contact with humans as children. Most of the cases focus on younger people, around puberty, and try to find evidence for a critical period. Other cases come from studies of brain damage, where people lose language skills and as adults rarely re-learn 100%.
If you'd like some references, I'd be happy to provide a few - if this is the kind of research you're interested in reading.
Best
CMF
Thanks CMF,
Actually, what I'm interested in isn't those rare cases where adults are just starting to learn their first language. I'm interested in comparisons between normal adults continuing their L1 acquisition (eg. people in those situations I mention in the last 4 bullet points of the initial post adding to their language ability).
The most obvious is in the learning of new lexis. For example I first learned the phrase 'anaphoric reference' when I was about 25 or 26 years old. How did I learn it? Was it through active study/teaching, for example by looking it up in a dictionary or the glossary at the back of a book? Or was it through acquisition/incidental learning, for example by reading several different books on Discourse Analysis, and eventually understanding how to use the word?
How do people learn legal terms? Medical terms? Literary language? Everday-but-fairly-rare or regional language? (I now say 'duvet' when talking about what is known as a 'comforter' in some places and what I grew up calling a 'doona' in Australia. It was fairly easy to understand - direct translation from Aussie English to New Zealand English and/or direct reference to the object itself... but when/how/why did I move from doona to duvet as the first word I think of when expressing that concept?)
It must also happen with sentence and discourse structures (for example, I imagine the ability to construct certain types of complex noun phrases in written English probably doesn't come until the final years of high-school or early years of University, and in cases such as Business English, journalism, and other specialist writing, perhaps much later), and text layouts/formats (I'm still learning when it comes to academic writing, and various business and legal documents have very particular styles, layouts, formats, etc).
I often feel like my continuing learning of Chinese (roughly pre-Intermediate spoken Chinese, being my only real additional language) improves in similar ways to my continuing learning of English (my first language). Perhaps there aren't many contrasts to make for Beginner learners, but I'm sure studies into continuing L1 acquisition must be just as relevant as studies into initial L1 acquisition when it comes to L2 acquisition. Musn't it?
I have a question here on EFL teachers' thinking about the teaching and learning of English. do teachers have their own understanding/perception or whatever you call it about what must be done in the teaching and learning of English for students' success? I am forced to ask this question because ELT principles have been developed by researchers from linguistics, psychology, education, etc. let me add one very specific question that should be answered by an English teacher: do believe that your lesson plan is the product of your teaching philosophy or does your lesson plan reflect your what and how of teaching?
"...ELT principles have been developed by researchers from linguistics, psychology, education, etc."
I'm not quite sure what your post means Elearnbrhn and what your position is. I've interpreted it as:
* Teachers shouldn't have their own understandings/perceptions. Teachers should only base their views on research by linguists, psychologists, etc.
If I've interpreted it incorrectly, I apologise.
I believe that research by linguists, psychologists, education researches, etc, is extremely valuable. However, I would also add two caveats:
1) A lot of the important things that researchers want to find out can never be analysed 100% objectively. No matter how controlled an experiment is, there are so many other factors affecting people's learning that we can't know for sure. This kind of research gives us a lot of insight and a lot of clues, but we still need a lot more research to be sure.
2) By definition 'controlled experiments' are very narrow in focus. While this kind of research is helpful, so is more holistic experience - teachers working every day with different groups of students in different kinds of situations reflecting on what happens in their actual classes in real-world 'uncontrolled' situations, bring considerable knowledge, experience, ideas and value to the philosophy of teaching that researchers can't. As long as they are being reflective they are actually doing research - it's just of a broader and more comprehensive kind than the more scientific approaches.
So all in all, I would say:
* Yes, teachers should have their own philosophy.
* Their philosophy should be based on a broad combination of - reflection on research, reflection on their own teaching and learning experiences, and discussion with their students, other teachers, and more.
* Lesson plans should be reflective of our teaching philosophies and that philosophy should lead to specific 'whats' and 'hows' of teaching that they can refer to in class.
(PS. Great post Elearnbrh. You know it's a good post when you prompt someone to write this much - a topic worth discussion.)