Stages of L 1st Acquisition

Stages of L 1^st Acquisition

By/ Brwa R. Sharif

13/ April/ 2013
 

The basic requirements for language acquisition:

1 - Exposure

It is the first basic requirement for language acquisition. If we take a child born of Moroccan parents and put him in another social environment, such as Italy, he will speak the language spoken there (i.e. Italian) not Moroccan Arabic. This is called cultural transmission, not genetic transmission. If the child were not exposed to a human language, “the language faculty” (that is the ability to acquire language) with which he is born, cannot be activated.

2 - Physical Fitness

There is no language output if language faculty was not activated. This leads us to say that language acquisition requires both the auditory and the acoustic input.

3 - The Critical Age

The critical age, called Puberty, occurs in the area where language is. Language acquisition has to be activated before this age. If the language faculty is not activated on time that is before this age language acquisition will certainly fail.

Stages of L 1^st Acquisition:

1 - Pre- Linguistic Period:

  a.       Cooing

Children learn to recognize the distinctive sounds, the phonemes of the language they hear from birth long before they are able to pronounce them. Infants can distinguish between /p/ and /b/ at three or four months (in an experiment with /ba/ played vs. /pa/, a two month infant showed awareness of the change). But children do not learn how to use these sounds until much later-- around the second year or later--as shown by the experiment with /pok/ and /bok/.

            Between six and eight weeks the first cooing sounds are produced, generally when the baby is in a settled state. These sounds develop alongside crying, gradually becoming more frequent and more varied, as the child responds to the mother’s smiles and speech. They are quieter, lower pitched, and more musical than crying, usually consisting of a short, vowel-like sound preceded by a consonant-like sound made towards the back of the mouth many have nasal quality.

   b.     Vocal play:

During cooing stage there is a great deal of lip movement and tongue thrusting, which it is thought may be a form of imitation. This leads between twenty and thirty weeks, to vocal play. The sounds of vocal play are much steadier and longer than those of cooing. Most segments last over one second, and consist of consonant + vowel-like sequences that are frequently repeated. They are usually at a high pitch level, and involve wide glides from high to low. (Crystal)

    c.       Babbling stage:

Children around the sixth to the ninth month begin to differentiate between the sounds and select the sounds that exist in their environment. This stage is essential to proper language acquisition because it familiarizes children with the sounds of their voices, allowing them to gain control over their vocalizations, and it is characterized by indiscriminate utterance of speech sounds. This stage is essential to proper language acquisition because it familiarizes children with the sounds of their voices, allowing them to gain control over their vocalizations.

The fact that all children (including the congenitally deaf) go through a babbling stage, regardless of language and culture, and make very similar kinds of sounds at this time suggests that humans are biologically predisposed to go through this phase. (Akmajian, Demers, Farmer, & Harnish, 1997)

Babbling is a smaller set of sounds is used with greater frequency and stability, to produce the [bababa] and other sequences known as reduplicated babbling.  (Crystal, 2007)

Reduplicative babbling in child language acquisition

During the period 6 to 11 months after birth, all typically developing infants go through a stage of reduplicated or canonical babbling (Stark 198, Oller, 1980 as cited in Wikipedia). Canonical babbling is characterized by repetition of identical or nearly identical consonant-vowel combinations, such as 'nanana' or 'didididi'. It appears as a progression of language development as infants experiment with their vocal apparatus and home in on the sounds used in their native language. Canonical/reduplicated babbling also appears at a time when general rhythmic behavior, such as rhythmic hand movements and rhythmic kicking, appear. Canonical babbling is distinguished from earlier syllabic and vocal play, which has less structure.

During babbling stage, the brain seems to be controlling the development of babbling and early speech in a similar way, so that a set of well-practiced sounds is available for use at time when children become intellectually capable of using sound for the communication of meaning. (Crystal, 2007)

The linguistic period:

    a.       One word (holophrastic) stage.

At some point in the late part of the first year of life or the early part of the second year, the child begins using recognizable words of the native language. These words are usually the names of familiar people, animals, and objects in the child’s environment (mama, dada, kitty, doggie, ball, bottle, cup) and words indicating certain actions and demands (More, No). In this stage a certain child might use the word (doggie) to refer not just to dogs but to all common animals in the environment (overextension). In contrast, a child might use the word (doggie) to refer not to all dogs but only to certain specific dogs (underextension). (Akmajian, Demers, Farmer, & Harnish, 1997)

A particular sound often used in a child’s environment (such as in the name of a sibling or a pet) can cause that sound to be used much earlier than it otherwise might. Some children have favorite sounds, which they introduce into many words, whether the sound is in the adult version or not. Others avoid sounds for example, persistently dropping certain consonants at the ends of words. Several studies showed the way children change the sounds of the language when they attempt to use them:

They tend to replace fricative consonants by stops: see → [ti:]

They tend to replace velar consonants by alveolar ones: gone → [don]

They avoid consonant clusters: sky → [kaI]

They tend to omit consonants at the ends of words: hat → [ha]

They often drop unstressed syllables: banana → [nana]   (Crystal, 2007)

Overextension Vs underextension:
 

During one word stage another phenomenon usually occurs which is overextension or underextension. A certain child might use the word doggie to refer not just to dogs but to all common animals in the environment (overextension). In contrast, a child might use the word doggie to refer not to all dogs (all animals that could properly be referred to by the word doggie) but only to certain specific dogs (underextension). (Akmajian, Demers, Farmer, & Harnish, 1997)

Deaf babies whose parents use sign language begin making their first word/gestures around eight months. This stage is characterized by the production of actual speech signs. Often the words are simplified: "du" for duck, "ba" for bottle. When the child has acquired about 50 words he develops regular pronunciation patterns.

    b.      The Two-Word Utterances:

This stage is around 18-24 months; babies begin to use "mini-sentences" with simple semantic relations. They produce two- word utterances which can show different combination of word order. In this stage, the words lack morphological and syntactic markers but we can notice that there is a word order. And it is the beginning of real communication, and may resemble early proto-languages, such as give milk as a request for a drink and daddy home to observe that the father has returned.

During second year, as simple sentences develop, a wider range of attitudes is expressed, and prosody begins to signal differences in emphasis. At this point, it becomes possible to distinguish such general sentences as Daddy gone from the contrastive Daddy gone (not someone else).

Generally in this stage, children who are asked to repeat sentences may simply leave out the determiners, modals and verbal auxiliaries, verbal inflections, etc., and often pronouns as well. The same pattern can be seen in their own spontaneous utterances.

    c.       Telegraphic Stage:

Telegraphic stage or early multiword stage (better multi-morpheme), "Telegraphic" sentence structures of lexical rather than functional or grammatical morphemes appear. It nearly starts from the second year of babies’ birth. And they quickly progress to real grammar in short sentences, correctly placing words in proper order as in mommy call doggie - though this is not entirely correct, it shows an understanding of English sentence structure, the word forms are beginning to vary, inflectional morphemes begin to appear, and the use of simple prepositions become apparent. The child pronunciation is closer to the adult one.

Later development:
 

All children, no matter how rapid or how pedestrian their rate of acquisition, proceed systematically through the same learning stages for any particular linguistic structure.
 

How do children acquire WH questions?
 

The first wh words to be acquired are typically what and where, followed by who, how, and why; when, which, and whose are relatively late acquisitions. An early example of this is found in the work of Brown’s colleagues, Edward Klima and Ursula Bellugi, who proved that children learning English produce two different types of WH questions before they eventually come up with the correct adult version. They identified three distinct stages:
 

     a.      Use of WH word but no auxiliary verb employed.

What Daddy doing?

Why you laughing?

Where Mommy go?

    b.      Use of WH word and auxiliary verb after subject.

Where she will go?

Why doggy can’t see?

Why you don’t know?

     c.       Use of WH word and auxiliary verb before subject.

Where will she go?

Why can’t doggy see?

Why don’t you know?

How do children acquire yes/no question?
 

According to Brown’s early fieldwork there are 3 different stages of using yes/no questions:

    a.      Use of NO at the start of the sentence.

No the sun shining.

No Mary do it.

    b.      Use of NO inside the sentence but no auxiliary or BE verb.

There no rabbits.

I no taste it.

     c.       Use of NOT with appropriate abbreviation of auxiliary or BE.

Penny didn’t laugh.

It’s not raining. (Scovel, 2009)

References:

Akmajian, A., Demers, R. A., Farmer, A. K., & Harnish, R. M. (1997). Linguistics: An introduction to language and communication (4th ed.). Cambridge: The MIT Press.

Asilla, B. (2008, October). Language Acquisition Process. Retrieved March 10, 2013, from www.translationdirectory.com: http://www.translationdirectory.com/articles/article1233.htm

Crystal, D. (2007). How language works. London: Penguin group.

First Language Acquisition. (n.d.). Retrieved March 10, 2013, from pandora.cii.wwu.edu: http://pandora.cii.wwu.edu/vajda/ling201/test4materials/ChildLangAcquisition.htm

Language acquisition. (n.d.). Retrieved March 10, 2013, from www.thinkquest.org: http://library.thinkquest.org/C004367/la3.shtml

Liberman, M. (n.d.). Stages of language acquisition in children. Retrieved March 10, 2013, from ling.upenn.edu: http://www.ling.upenn.edu/courses/ling001/acquisition.html

Reduplication. (n.d.). Retrieved from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reduplication#Reduplicative_babbling_in_child_language_acquisition

Scovel, T. (2009). Psycholinguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Similarities and differences between 1st and 2nd language acquisition

Similarities and differences between 1^st and 2^nd language acquisition

By/ Brwa R. Sharif
14/ April/ 2013

Introduction

Various theories are put forward to describe first language (L1) acquisition and second language (L2) acquisition. In order to understand the nature of L1 and L2 language acquisition, various aspects were examined, compared, and contrasted.
Interlanguages have some common characteristics with L1 acquisition, because both share similar developmental sequences. Some of the characteristics of L2 acquisition show similarities with L1 acquisition, whereas others show differences.
 
Similarities between First and Second Language Acquisition

Researchers have carried out numerous studies to understand the nature of first and second language acquisition. These studies have revealed that both first and second language learners follow a pattern of development, which is mainly followed despite exceptions. Rod Ellis (1984) covers the idea of developmental sequences in detail and outlines three developmental stages: the silent period, formulaic speech, and structural and semantic simplification.
 
a.     Developmental Sequences

1.     Silent Period:

Both first and second language learners pass through a similar initial stage, the silent period. Children acquiring their first language go through a period of listening to the language they are exposed to. During this period the child tries to discover what language is. In the case of second language acquisition, learners opt for a silent period when immediate production is not required from them. In general, however, many second language learners - especially classroom learners- are urged to speak. The fact that there is a silent period in both first and second language learners (when given the opportunity) is widely accepted.
However, there is disagreement on what contribution the silent period has in second language acquisition. While Krashen (1982) argues that it builds competence in the learner via listening, Gibbons (1985, cited in Ellis, 1994) argues that it is a stage of incomprehension.
 
2.      Speech Formulaic

Formulaic speech is defined as expressions which are learnt as unanalysable wholes and employed on particular occasions (Lyons, 1968, cited in Ellis, 1994). Krashen (1982) suggests that these expressions can have the form of routines (whole utterances learned as memorized chunks - e.g. I don't know.), patterns (partially unanalyzed utterances with one or more slots - e.g. Can I have a ____?), and Ellis (1994) suggests that these expressions can consist of entire scripts such as greetings.
 
3.      Structural and Semantic Simplification

The first and second language learners apply structural and semantic simplifications to their language. Structural simplifications take the form of omitting grammatical functors (e.g. articles, auxiliary verbs) and semantic simplifications take the form of omitting content words (e. g. nouns, verbs). There are two suggested reasons why such simplifications occur. The first reason is that learners may not have yet acquired the necessary linguistic forms. The second reason is that they are unable to access linguistic forms during production.
 
b.    Acquisition Order

Wells (1986b, in Ellis, 1994) proposes inter-learner variables affecting the order of acquisition as sex, intelligence, social background, rate of learning, and experience of linguistic interaction.
Furthermore, McLaughlin (1987) claims that evidence from research shows that the learner's first language has an effect on acquisitional sequences which either slows their development or modifies it. He adds that, considerable individual variation in how learners acquire a second language, such as different learning, performance, and communication strategies, obscure the acquisitional sequences for certain constructions.
Lightbown and Spada (2006) review studies which have proposed that the acquisition of question words (what, where, who, why, when, and how), show a great similarity in first and second language acquisition. Based on the morpheme studies in L2 acquisition, Krashen (1982) put forward the Natural Order Hypothesis which he developed to account for second language acquisition. He claimed that we acquire the rules of language in a predictable order. This acquisition order is not determined by simplicity or the order of rules taught in the class.
The above arguments show that there seems to exist an order of acquisition in both first and second language acquisition.

c.      Linguistic Universals and Markedness

The findings show that unmarked features are learned earlier and easier than marked rules in both the first and the second language while unmarked forms require more time and effort by the learner.

d.    Overgeneralization

In both first and second language acquisition, learners may overgeneralize vocabulary or rules, using them in contexts broader than those in which they should be used. For example a child may say ‘goed’ instead of saying ‘went’ for past of ‘go’, and same thing may happen in second language acquisition an adult may say ‘holded’ instead of ‘held’ for past of ‘hold’.

e.      Input

Krashen (1982) argues that the input a first language learner receives is simple and comprehensible at the beginning and is getting slightly more complicated. With this argument, he supports his next argument that input should be slightly above the level of the language learner. Only in doing so can the second language learner move forward. He argues that the second language learner should be exposed to the target language as much as possible and that the lack of comprehensible input will cause the language learner to be held up in his development (Ellis, 1994; McLaughlin, 1987).
The Interactionist Approach to first language acquisition holds that one to one interaction gives the child access to language which is adjusted to his or her level of comprehension, therefore, interaction is seen as crucial and impersonal sources of language (such as TV and radio) are seen as insufficient. Consequently, verbal interaction is seen to be crucial for language leaning since it helps to make the facts of the second language salient to the learner. Similarly, intersectional modifications which take place in the conversations between native and non-native speakers are seen as necessary to make input comprehensible for the second language learner (Lightbown & Spada, 2006; Ellis, 1994).
 
f.      Behavioristic Views of Language Acquisition

The similarity between L1 and L2 acquisition is seen in the Behavioristic Approach originally which tries to explain learning in general. The famous psychologist Pavlov tried to explain learning in terms of conditioning and habit formation. Following Pavlov, B. F. Skinner tried to explain language learning in terms of operant conditioning. This view sees language as a behavior to be taught. A small part of the foreign language acts as a stimulus to which the learner responds (e.g. by repetition). When the learner is 100 % successful, the teacher reinforces by praise or approval.
Consequently, the likelihood of the behavior is increased. However, if the learner responds inappropriately then the behavior is punished and the likelihood of this behavior to occur is decreased (Brown, 1994). In other words, children imitate a piece of language they hear and if they receive positive reinforcement they continue to imitate and practice that piece of language which then turns into a 'habit' (Williams & Burden, 1997).
However, L1 and L2 learners form and repeat sentences they have not heard of before. Therefore, this approach fails to account for the creative language use of L1 and L2 learners.
 
g.     Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD)

We can say that zone of proximal development is shared in first and second language acquisition; for example, when children come across a problem they cannot solve themselves they turn to others for help. Thus, collaboration with another person is important for a child to learn. Otherwise, development would not be possible. Learning collaboratively with others precedes and shapes development. A good example for this process is said to be the development of literacy (Gallaway & Richards, 1994; Lantolf & Thorne, 2007).
Vygotsky (1982, cited in Daniels, 1996) asserts that through using language children take part in the intellectual life of the community. In order to negotiate meaning, collaboration between the child and the members of the community is required. Considering language education, instruction creates the zone of proximal development, stimulating a series of inner developmental processes (Daniels, 1996; Lantolf & Thorne, 2007). According to the ZPD, assistant performance and collaboration are crucial for learning and development. The teacher’s assistance and students’ collaboration with their teacher and their peers is inevitable for L2 development. The teacher’s most important classroom work “is to provide for the social interaction within the community of learners such that the learners may move from what they know to what they don’t yet know” (Hawkins, 2001, p. 375).
 
 
Differences of first and second language acquisition

On the surface one would look at child first language acquisition and adult second language acquisition and see similarities. In each case the learner first learns how to make basic sounds, then words, phrases and sentences; and as this learning continues the sentences become more and more complex. However, when one looks at the outcomes of these two types of acquisition, the differences are dramatic. The child's ability to communicate in the target language far surpasses that of the adult. In this paper differences in these two processes that most always produce such different outcomes will be explored.
 
a.     Input

The first area of difference between first (L1) and second (L2) language learning is input – specifically the quality and quantity of input. It is the idea of the "connectionist model that implies... (that the) language learning process depends on the input frequency and regularity". It is here where one finds the greatest difference between L1 and L2 acquisition. The quantity of exposure to a target language a child gets is immense compared to the amount an adult receives. A child hears the language all day every day, whereas an adult learner may only hear the target language in the classroom – which could be as little as three hours a week. Even if one looks at an adult in a total submersion situation the quantity is still less because the amount of one on one interaction that a child gets for example with a parent or other caregiver is still much greater than the adult is receiving.
 
 
b.    Age

The next great and obvious difference between L1 and L2 learning is age. A large part of this train of thought is the idea of a "critical period, or the "time after which successful language learning cannot take place". This time is usually aligned with puberty. This change is significant, "because virtually every learner undergoes significant physical, cognitive, and emotional changes during puberty.
There are three main physical changes one undergoes in regards to language acquisition. The first is the presence of muscular plasticity. A child's plasticity goes away at about the age of five. After this age it is very hard for a learner to fully master pronunciation of a second language. The second change is one's memorization capabilities. It is fairly well known that as a person grows older their ability to hold large amount of information reaches its peak fairly early in life, and then begins to decrease. This is seen most dominantly with very old individuals. The third physical change that occurs is more related to neurology.
"As a child matures into adulthood, the left hemisphere (which controls the analytical and intellectual functions) becomes more dominant than the right side (which controls the emotional functions)."
The one advantage adults seem to have over children is their cognitive ability. Adults are better able to benefit from learning about structure and grammar. Unfortunately this slight advantage in ability does not help adult second language acquisition in general. In fact this ability almost hinders them in that they analyze too much. Specifically, they cannot leave behind what they know about their first language, which leads to a tendency to overanalyze and to second guess what they are learning.
The final area that puberty changes is within the emotional, or affective, realm. Motivation is much affected by emotional change. A child's motivation is simple. In order to communicate and to be a part of family and society the child must master the target language. This motivation is quite weighty, especially when compared to the motivation that adults have, or rather, must find. Adult motivations usually fall into one of two categories: "integrative motivation (which encourages a learner to acquire the new language in order to become closer to and/or identify themselves with the speakers of the target language) or instrumental motivation (which encourages a learner to acquire proficiency for such practical purposes as becoming a translator, doing further research, and aiming for promotion in their career)". Either one of these types of motivation must be prevalent for successful acquisition to take place.
 
c.      Egocentricity

The final change that takes place, and changes language learning has to do with egocentricity. Children are naturally egocentric. While learning their language they are not afraid to make mistakes, and in general, they do not feel abashed when they are corrected. Also, their thoughts usually do not surpass their language ability. Adults, on the other hand usually suffer form a fairly large amount of language learning anxiety. Adults often "feel frustrated or threatened in the struggle of learning a different language". Mistakes are seen more as failures then as opportunities for growth. "The adult learner may also feel greatly frustrated, for being only able to express their highly complex ideas at a discourse level of an elementary school pupil". These new emotions leave an adult learner in a slightly helpless position, unable to regain the egocentricity of their childhood, which is just on more hindrance in a line of many.
 
 
d.    Experience with another language

In the process of learning a second language, a learner experiences something different from his mother tongue. The first language has no experience with another language, while the learner of the second language has already learnt one language in his child hood. In the second language, he finds different vocabulary; grammar structures and so on are totally different from his mother tongue.
 
e.      Process of learning

Learning of the first language is a natural process. A person learns his mother tongue in a natural way. There is the strongest social compulsion for the child, to pick up his mother tongue. For the second language learner, the compulsion may not be strong and the class rooms activities helping him to learn may be artificial graded and selected items are exposed.
 
f.      Time limit

In first language acquisition one has a choice of time that means the learner decided his time that when to learn. Nobody can force him because it happens in society whereas second language learner has to keep in the mind in the mind the time of teacher. And he is forced by his teachers to learn. So, first language learner learns by his own language learner has to keep in mind the time given by the expert.
In first language acquisition, children spend several years listening to language, babbling, and using telegraphic speech before they can form sentences. In second language acquisition in older learners, learning is more rapid and people are able to form sentences within a shorter period of time.
 
 
 

References

Ipek, H. (2009). Comparing and Contrasting First and Second Language Acquisition: Implications for Language Teachers. English Language Teaching, 2(2), 155-163.
solanki, H. (2006, December 1). similarities & differences between L1&L2. Retrieved April 13, 2013, from l1orl2hiren.blogspot.com: http://l1orl2hiren.blogspot.com/
Tucker, M. (2003, December 2). First and Second Language Acquisition. Retrieved April 13, 2013, from serendip.brynmawr.edu: http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/biology/b103/f03/web2/mtucker.html
Vanegas, C. (2009). Similarities and Differences between First and Second Language Acquisition. Retrieved April 13, 2013, from Multilingualism: http://multilingualism.pbworks.com/w/page/21913433/Similarities%20and%20Differences%20between%20First%20and%20Second%20Language%20Acquisition

Bilingual First Language Acquisition

Bilingual First Language Acquisition

By/ Brwa R. Sharif

22/ April/ 2013

1.      Introduction

De Houwer defines Bilingual First Language Acquisition (BFLA) as “the development of two languages from birth in young children”, and he also defines as “the development of language in young children who hear two languages spoken to them from birth”, and another interesting definition is that a “passive” bilingual understands two languages but speaks only one. The child’s environment is very important for them as De Houwer states that BFLA is definitely a case where nurture is important, as “the family is the primary socializing agent for the development of BFLA”. (Clark, 2010)
The simultaneous acquisition of two languages from birth is called bilingual first language acquisition. A major question in studies of BFLA, and a focus of this summary, is whether the developmental path and time course of language development in BFL learners is the same as that of children learning only one language. Underlying this question is the theoretical issue of whether children’s ability to learn language is challenged in any way by the acquisition of two languages at the same time.

2.      Some Views and Studies

There are many views and studies about BFLA and to know some of this phenomenon we will focus on some evidence that the rate of language development is slowed down in BFL learners compared with monolingual learners would argue that the ability that all children have to learn language is compromised by the challenge of learning more than one language at the same time. An additional issue is whether exposure to two languages simultaneously influences the pattern of development so that it differs from that observed in monolingual learners. Evidence that the patterns are different could give us insights as to how the processes that underlie language acquisition cope with dual language input.
BFL learners might go through an initial monolingual stage, but one instance of the more general concern that BFLA strains the child’s language learning capacity, leading to delayed and even impaired forms of language development. This concern has been expressed in a number of ways: BFLA might result in impaired cognitive, as well as linguistic, development; bilingual education puts children at risk for academic failure or delay; or BFL learners will be socio-cultural misfits, identifying strongly with neither language group. (Hoff & Shatz, 2007)
Researchers/theoreticians, professionals, and laypersons alike often view the simultaneous acquisition of two languages during the pre-school years with reservation and concern. It is thought to exceed the language learning capacity of the young child and, thus, to incur potential costs, such as delayed or incomplete language development or even deviant development. Such views are often evident in communities and among individuals who themselves are monolingual.
Most linguistic and psycholinguistic theories of language acquisition are silent on the matter of bilingual acquisition, reinforcing the notion that monolingualism is the norm and bilingualism is not. What is normal is usually regarded as risk-free; thus, by default, bilingual acquisition is often viewed as extraordinary, potentially putting the individual at some kind of risk (Genesee, as cited in Genesee, 2008). Demographically speaking, however, there is no reason to believe that bilingualism is in fact unusual; to the contrary, there may well be as many, or more, children who grow up bilingually as monolingually (Sachdev & Bourhis, Tucker, as cited in Genesee, 2008).

3.      The Development of Two Languages Simultaneously

Much of the research on the development of two languages simultaneously has been motivated by the unitary language system hypothesis according to which children exposed to two languages go through an initial stage when the languages are not differentiated (Leopold, Volterra & Taeschner, Genesee, 1989, as cited in Hoff & Shatz, 2007).
Volterra and Taeschner’s hypothesis, in effect, proposed that the initial state of the developing bilingual child is essentially monolingual. A corollary issue is whether the two languages of bilingual children develop autonomously or interdependently (Paradis & Genesee, 1996, as cited in Hoff & Shatz, 2007). Interdependent development would result from systemic influence of one language on the development of the other, resulting in patterns or rates of development that differ from what would be expected in monolingual children.

a.      Morphosyntax

Findings from research on BFLA generally indicate that bilingual children exhibit the same rate of morphosyntactic development as monolingual children, at least in their dominant language. This is evident even in bilingual children who are identified as having a specific language impairment. More specifically, Paradis, Crago, Genesee, and Rice found that French– English bilingual children in Quebec with specific language impairment exhibited the same pattern and degree of impairment in each language as similarly impaired monolingual English and French children of the same age.
At the same time, there is evidence of cross-linguistic transfer of specific morphosyntactic features from one language into the other. Dopke (2000), for example, found that Australian children learning English and German simultaneously used -VO word order much more in all verbal clauses in their German than native, monolingual speakers of German. German uses both -VO and –OV word order: -VO in main clauses and both -VO and -OV word order in subordinate clauses; English, in contrast, uses -VO order in main and subordinate clauses. A mitigating factor in cross-linguistic transfer could be language dominance. Children might be more likely to incorporate structures from their dominant into their weaker language than vice versa. And, Matthews and Yip (2003) have suggested another mitigating factor, namely that asynchronous development of two languages with respect to specific features (e.g., relative clause constructions in Chinese and English) might also result in transfer of a structure that is normally acquired earlier in one language (e.g., Chinese) to the language in which the corresponding structure is normally acquired later (e.g., English) (Hoff & Shatz, 2007).

b.      Lexicon

Studies that have examined age of first word production report that bilingual children produce their first words at about the same age as monolingual children – 12 to 13 months (Genesee; Patterson & Pearson). Other milestones of lexical acquisition in bilingual and monolingual children are also similar – bilingual children’s rates of vocabulary acquisition generally fall within the range reported for same-age monolinguals, as long as both languages are considered for bilinguals (Pearson, Fernandez, & Oller), and the distribution of lexical categories (e.g., noun, verb, etc.) in the early lexicons of bilingual children is similar to that observed in monolingual children (Nicoladis). The relative amount of time spent in each language can affect the relative vocabulary size in each language of a bilingual (Pearson, Fernandez, Lewedag, & Oller). (Hoff & Shatz, 2007)
A number of researchers have reported that bilingual children produce translation equivalents (words in each language that have the same referential meaning) from the time they first begin to speak. Lanvers and Nicoladis and Secco found further that bilingual children used relatively few translation equivalents before the age of 1;5, but the percentage of translation equivalents in their two languages jumped subsequently to around 20–25% of their total vocabulary words thereafter.

c.       Phonology

Researchers have been interested in whether children with simultaneous dual language exposure exhibit the same patterns of phonological development and progress at the same rate as children with monolingual exposure, in terms of both perception and production.
A corollary issue in the production studies has been when children with dual language exposure give evidence of having two phonological systems. Most of the research on phonological development has been carried out in the last 10 years and must be interpreted with caution because it is diverse in linguistic focus and in the ages of the children who have been studied. Nevertheless, the picture that is emerging indicates that bilingual children show a tendency for different patterns of development in both prosodic (at the level of the syllable, such as rhythm) and segmental (at the level of the phoneme, such as phonemic discrimination) phonology compared with monolingual children (Vihman, as cited in Hoff & Shatz, 2007).
Research on speech perception during the preverbal stage of development has shown that monolingual infants can differentiate between their native (input) language and a “foreign language” (Mehler, Dupoux, Nazzi, & Dehaene-Lambertz, as cited in Hoff & Shatz, 2007) if the languages belong to different rhythmic groups (e.g., French and Russian), and they can differentiate between languages within the same rhythmic group (e.g., Spanish and Catalan) by 4.5 months of age (Bosch & Sebastian-Galles, as cited in Hoff & Shatz, 2007). Bosch and Sebastian-Galles (1997, as cited in Hoff & Shatz, 2007) have found that 4-month-old infants exposed to both Spanish and Catalan have similar language differentiation abilities, indicating that reduced exposure to each language does not delay the emergence of this ability in bilinguals. The ability to distinguish between two languages early in development provides an important part of the foundation for building separate linguistic systems.
Research that has examined the early perception of segmental features of speech has found that children with dual language exposure from birth exhibit the same abilities as monolingual children but at a somewhat later age. Monolingual infants are initially able to discriminate phonetic contrasts that are not necessarily phonemic in their native language.
However, their discrimination abilities become language-specific during the second half of the first year of life so that they continue to discriminate contrasts that are phonemic in their native language, but cannot discriminate contrasts that are not phonemic. Vowel contrasts are perceived phonemically earlier (by 6–8 months of age; Bosch & Sebastian- Galles; Kuhl, Williams, Lacerda, Stevens, & Lindblom, as cited in Hoff & Shatz, 2007) than consonant contrasts (by 8–10 months of age; Werker & Tees, as cited in Hoff & Shatz, 2007). Bilingual first language children go through a similar reorganization in speech perception but exhibit language specific effects somewhat later than has been reported for monolinguals – by 12 months of age for vowel contrasts (Bosch & Sebastian-Galles, as cited in Hoff & Shatz, 2007) and by 14 to 21 months of age for consonant contrasts (Burns, Werker, & McVie, as cited in Hoff & Shatz, 2007).
Children with dual language exposure have similarly shown a delay in the ability to use phonetic contrasts in word learning. More specifically, Fennel, Polka, and Werker found that while monolingual children were able to associate new words that differed by a minimal consonant contrast (i.e., /bih–dih/) with novel shapes at 17 months of age, bilingual children were able to do so only by 20 months of age. By contrast, research on word segmentation by Polka and Sundara found that French–English bilingual children were able to segment words from continuous speech in both their native languages by 7 months of age, like monolingual children. At the same time, early recognition of word forms in bilingual (and even monolingual) children may be sensitive to amount of exposure. (Hoff & Shatz, 2007)
Turning to production, Oller, Eilers, Urbano, and Cobo-Lewis (1997) found that the age of onset of canonical babbling was the same (i.e., around 27 weeks of age) for a group of bilingual English–Spanish children and English monolinguals, and Maneva and Genesee (2002) report evidence of differentiated babbling by a 10- to 15-month-old French–English bilingual child that corresponded to patterns attested in monolingual French and English babbling.

4.      Bilingual code-mixing

One aspect of bilingual acquisition is code-mixing. Bilingual code-mixing is the use of elements (phonological, lexical, and morpho-syntactic) from two languages in the same utterance or stretch of conversation or in different situations. Bilingual code-mixing is ubiquitous among bilinguals, both child and adult. It can take different forms.
Intra-utterance code-mixing refers to cases when two languages are used in the same utterance (e.g., “give me le cheval ”/“give me the horse”) whereas inter-utterance mixing refers to cases where there is a switch from one language to another across utterances, with each utterance being monolingual (e.g., Mother: “What’s this?”; child: “cheval”). Some researchers have also referred to situational mixing where bilinguals change language depending on the formal or informal nature of the situation. In addition, child bilingual code-mixing has been interpreted by researchers and laypersons as an indication of linguistic confusion and incompetence.
Many researchers and most laypersons have noted that young children in the process of learning two languages often use elements from both languages in the same utterance or stretch of conversation when they start speaking. As noted earlier, the mixed elements can include different aspects of language, including sounds, words, or grammatical structures (Genesee, as cited in Genesee, 2008). Using a word from one language while using the other language is the most common form of mixing among children. For example, a young Spanish-German bilingual boy speaking with his Spanish-speaking mother said, “Das no juegan”; “das” is the German word for “that” and “no juegan” is Spanish for “do not play” (Redlinger & Park, as cited in Genesee, 2008). Using the syntactic (grammatical) patterns from one language while speaking another language is another form of mixing, but is less common in children. Saunders reported that his five-year old German/English-speaking son said to his English-speaking mother, “Mum, I had my school jumper all day on” (cited in Genesee, 2008)While German requires this word order, this construction is not grammatical in English.

5.      Communicative competence

An important component of the communicative competence of proficient bilinguals is the ability to use each of their languages differentially and appropriately according to relevant characteristics of the interlocutors and communicative situations.
It was examined the communicative competence of four young children (average age of 2; 2, average MLU of 1·56) who were acquiring English and French simultaneously in the home. And it was observed the ways these children used their languages with monolingual strangers and with their bilingual parents. Specifically, the children's use of English-only, French-only, and mixed (English and French) utterances with the strangers during naturalistic play situations was compared with patterns of use with their parents, also during play sessions. It was found that all of the children made some accommodations that could be linked to the monolingualism of the stranger; some of the children were more accommodating than others. (Genesee, Boivin, & Nicoladis, Talking with strangers: A study of bilingual children's communicative competence, 1996)
What comes first in the acquisition of communicative competence? The various components of communicative competence, such as the phonological, pragmatic, semantic and lexical level, are said to start in the pre-linguistic period of the child, while the morphological and syntactic aspect, though unobserved in this period, emerge noticeably in the production data. If we want to see how communicative competence grows in a foreign language learner, in Foster’s terminology, there are two aspects of human development that should be considered: “nature (i.e., innate predispositions of the human organism) and nurture (i.e., experience)”.
In a foreign language, some aspects of communicative competence are developed simultaneously, but the order is remarkably altered: the phonological, morphological and syntactic aspects seem to be prioritized over the lexical, semantic and, last and least, pragmatic level in traditionally structured classes. (Renart, 2005)
The psycho and sociolinguistic studies show, that the alternative language use is determined by many markers such as place and topic of conversation, participants of communication and so on. If the child recurrently listens to an individual speaking the given language, the situation actualizing, the speech set will tend to be more deeply rooted in the child. Psychological speech sets are later differentiated as ability of speaking the respective language. The more differentiated the speech sets are, the more probable a successful switch from one language to the other will be and the less frequently interlinguistic confusions will occur. Bilingual competence is a dynamic phenomenon determined by a number of factors such as, for example, the child’s language biography, birth order, the types, frequency and intensity of the child’s social interactions in appropriate language within and outside the family, the parents’ communicative strategies (one person one language, language-mixed input), and so on. (Jarovinskij, 2000)


6.      Conclusion

Acquiring two languages simultaneously from birth is known as bilingual first language acquisition. And it is very common in those countries where two or more languages are spoken, and it occurs among immigrants. But this phenomenon has become an important issue among scholars and researchers since they may not be able to find whether it is good or bad to be a bilingual from birth. Having come to a conclusion, becoming bilingual from birth is magnificent. And I think the only problem with bilinguals is code-mixing, although they probably overcome to that aspect at some point, but children still need effort to overcome that issue.

 References

• Clark, T. (2010, July 25). Introducing Bilingual First Language Acquisition, or BLFA. Retrieved 10 April, 2013, from taraclark.ca: http://taraclark.ca/introducing-bilingual-first-language-acquisition-or-blfa/
• Genesee, F. (2008). Bilingual First Language Acquisition: Evidence from Montreal. Érudit, 9-26. doi:10.7202/019559ar
• Genesee, F., Boivin, I., & Nicoladis, E. (1996). Talking with strangers: A study of bilingual children's communicative competence. Applied Psycholinguistics, 17(4), 427-442. doi:10.1017/S0142716400008183
• Hoff, E., & Shatz, M. (Eds.). (2007). Blackwell handbook of language develepment. Malden, USA: Blackwell.
• Jarovinskij, A. (2000). Acquiring bilingual communicative competence. Hungarian Academy Sciences, 561-564.
• Renart, L. (2005). Communicative competence in children: Spanish-English bilinguality. In J. Cohen, K. T. McAlister, K. Rolstad, & J. MacSwan (Ed.), Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Bilingualism (pp. 1934-1944). Somerville: Cascadilla Press. Retrieved from http://www.cascadilla.com/isb4.html