Art Un ticle I.1 ited Sta In the ates News - Woodring College of ...

1992, p. XI). These researchers, while acknowledging the existence of the biological basis oflanguage acquisition, also acknowledge that “interpretation and meaning are necessarilyembedded in cultural systems of understanding. If language is a meaning-making system andspeaking and listening are meaning-making activities, then accounts of these phenomena must atsome point draw on accounts of society and culture” (Ochs, 1988, p. 4). In recognition of theinfluence of culture, Schieffelin and Ochs (1986) refer to the process of language acquisition inthe sociocultural context as “language socialization.” Ochs defines socialization as “the processby which one becomes a competent member or society” (p. 5) and language socialization as“socialization through language and socialization to use language” (p.14). This perspectiverecognizes that linguistic competence involves much more than the ability to comprehend andproduce grammatically correct utterances. Language competence involves the ability to selectbetween a variety of possible options of linguistic form and content according the social contextand cultural norms, as well as interpreting subtle meanings that require extensive social andcultural knowledge. An example is knowing when “Would you like to sit down?” becomes anindirect command, a real question, or a comment on inappropriate behavior.The study of second language acquisition clearly fits within the above theoretical debate.Understanding how second language learners best acquire a new language may shed moreinformation about the relative influence of cognition, language-specific brain functions, andenvironmental influences. Unlike the process of first language acquisition in young children, theprocess of second language acquisition can be observed under a variety of circumstances. Therelative influences of age, personality, social context, type of language input and other factorscan be better isolated and explored. This information can, in turn, inform our understanding ofhow language acquisition as a generic process unfolds.The Process of First Language AcquisitionIt is a remarkable fact that, without special training or carefully sequenced linguistic input,every normal child acquires a natural language. The universality of language in our speciesstands in glaring contrast to the much more selective attainment of comparable cognitive skills,such as the ability to perform arithmetic calculations. A related fact is that every child in alinguistic community succeeds in converging on a grammatical system that is equivalent toeveryone else’s, despite considerable variability in linguistic experience. Moreover, childrenacquire language quite rapidly and with few wrong turns, considering the number of potentialpitfalls that exist (Crain, 1994, p. 364).Precursors to language production.Language acquisition is indeed a remarkable process. Children acquire the language(s) heardaround them and seem to do so in strikingly similar ways the world over. This process is evenmore remarkable when we consider what a child must know and be able to do to produce herfirst word, for example, “mama.” To answer this question, we need to distinguish between thereal use of a word for communicative purposes and the imitation of a string of sounds. It is easyfor first time parents, eagerly anticipating Joey’s first word, to interpret /mama/ as mother and/dada/ for daddy when the child is really just engaging in babbling or sound play. In order to call/mama/ or /dada/ a word, it should occur in consistent contexts, spontaneously (withoutimitation), and appear to indicate a communicative intent. Clearly, this can be difficult todetermine. However, if Joey says /dada/ when repeating sounds made during play with hismother and produces this consonant-vowel combination along with others, such as /baba/, /gaga/,and /dadada/, then we can probably suspect that it is not a real word. On the other hand, if Joey© 2008 Dr. Catherine CollierAll Rights Reserved85