Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching - National University

and be used for communication. Therefore the acquisition of the SL, at least for children, should
be similar to the first one irrespective of the language type.
Assuming that first and SL acquisition are similar processes implies a corresponding
similarity in the underlying language acquisition structure. That is, it suggests that the same
understanding of language that informs first language acquisition also informs SL acquisition.
Cummins (2001) developed a model of underlying proficiency that captures this notion. He
argues that, rather than first and SLs being informed by a separate underlying proficiency (SUP),
both of the bilingual’s languages are informed by a common underlying proficiency (CUP).
Another model of language acquisition, Universal Grammar (UG) (e.g., Chomsky, 1968;
Haegema, 1994), also assumes the similarity of the processes common to first and SL. According
to this theory, there is a set of universal principles that underlies all languages. Languages vary
with respect to the ways in which those principles are instantiated; however, they do not violate
them. Within the UG framework, learning an SL is a matter of learning the ways in which the
target language parameterizes the principles that the learner already knows from his or her first
language. Similar, to the CUP model, the UG model assumes that the basic linguistic knowledge
that lays the foundations of the first language also underlies the second. If this is true, then
Chomsky’s model, like Cummins’ model, predicts that second-language academic skills can be
enhanced by the development of already-existing first-language academic skills. It is a wellknown
fact that every next language is easier to master; the problem is usually the first SL/FL.
Therefore, the difference between the first and SLs should not be a significant interfering factor
for learning another language.
There may be individual issues affecting learning an SL. Commonly mentioned issues
relate to student anxiety in the FL classroom, lack of effort, low motivation, poor language
learning habits, and so on. Schwarz (1997) identified three other factors: learning disability,
undiagnosed learning disabilities, and a specific language learning disability. Sparks and
Ganschow’s Linguistic Coding Deficit Hypothesis (Sparks & Ganschow, 1993), states that
difficulties with FL acquisition stem from deficiencies in one or more of the three linguistic
codes in the student's native language system, whether phonological, semantic, or syntactic.
These deficiencies result in mild to extreme problems with specific oral and written aspects of
language and can be addressed. The first approach is that if, for instance, the phonological code
is the problem, the sound system of the target language must be explicitly taught. The second is
to adapt the FL learning to principles of instruction known to be effective for students with
learning disabilities.
From a pedagogical point of view, the inability of ESL learners to reach SL academic
proficiency in a reasonable time, commonly only by the seventh year of study (Cummins 1982),
speaks poorly of the instructional approach used for the purpose. There are numerous examples
demonstrating fast and quality learning outcomes in FLs, which can be attributed to effective
methods and efficient teachers. One of them, common in many countries, is a standard one-year
only program to prepare foreign students for academic success in university classes taught in the
national language. Massive bilingualism in EU is another example. Psychologically and
methodologically, if a person is proficient in the mother tongue, there is no excuse for him or her
not to be proficient in another language, except for lack of purpose, motivation, and a good
teacher.
The linguistic environment in FL or ESL learning also plays a major role that cannot be
overestimated. It will be discussed below.
128