The statement that learning another language as well as our first is impossible holds some truth. This does not necessarily mean that we lose our ability to acquire a language, but it is due to changes in our circumstances. From a physiological standpoint, plasticity is maintained in certain people for more extended periods depending on their location and level of open-mindedness. In this essay, I shall compare ideas from the Innate and Interactionist Theories of Second Language Acquisition (SLA) to support this standpoint.

Over the years, the subject of second language acquisition has attracted debates among linguists, and numerous research in neurolinguistics and psycholinguistics has contributed to confirming and challenging earlier theories on the topic. Nonetheless, our limited knowledge of the brain – only 10% of its full potential – makes it extremely difficult to come up with concrete theories that explain how we acquire a second language. The vast array of elements involved, such as age of acquisition, socio-economic status, and methodology used, makes it almost impossible to predicate the success rate of a specific SLA process.

As asserted by Daniela Perani et al., in "The Bilingual Brain. Proficiency and Age of Acquisition of the Second Language" article, numerous linguists have referred to the existence of an 'organ' in the brain that humans have developed and that distinguishes them from other animal species as they are capable of acquiring language. However, there is a lot of variation in the location of this organ since it is not situated in the left hemisphere of the brain in all cases, and it has been observed that the opposite hemisphere can functionally take over when the linguistic area of the brain becomes affected after aphasia, for instance.

The natural ability of some individuals to acquire a language more effortlessly than others, the ease with which bilinguals practically from birth acquire a language, why children learn languages faster than adults, and the effectiveness of learning a language in a classroom are all intriguing questions worthy of further analysis in the study of neurolinguistics. Consequently, the acquisition of a second, third, fourth, or fifth language remains an exciting field with untold variables.

One of the theories chosen in this essay, the Nativist Theory by Noam Chomsky, is fascinating and piques my curiosity as to how its foundations were formulated. This theory focuses on explaining the inherent predisposition of humans to acquire language. The theory revolves around a concept known as the Language Acquisition Storage device (LAD), which is genetically transmitted and has universal grammar. The LAD is similar to a hardware or linguistic processor that operates the software called universal grammar.

Universal grammar contains aspects common in all languages known to humans, such as nouns used to name objects and concepts and verbs to identify actions. This grammar fosters the development of a person's symbolic capacity, whereby language becomes the fundamental system through which our brain thinks, formulates ideas and concepts. Therefore, without language, there can be no thought. In conclusion, the LAD gets activated when one gets exposed to the language, which aligns with the linguistic immersion approach to foreign language learning. The LAD is responsible for the spontaneous acquisition of the mother tongue and/or second languages on an everyday basis without explicit learning.

It is worth mentioning that this language acquisition relates to verbal comprehension and production, which implies that schools play a crucial role in acquiring the non-natural part of language, namely literacy - learning to read and write.

Shifting our focus to the interactionist theory of second language acquisition (SLA), and drawing a comparison with the previous theory, we can start by defining the fundamental aspects of this perspective. The social interaction approach underscores the socio-communicative functions of human relationships as the explanatory source or factor for language development. Language evolves because of the role played by these functions - more mature linguistic structures allow for more intricate and diverse forms of socializing with others.

Social interactionism does not just give primary importance to the environment and parental strategies in the genesis and acquisition of language, but also regards children and their linguistic surroundings as a dynamic system. Both are necessary for (1) effective communication at any stage of development and (2) developing the child's linguistic skills.

Parents use strategies, like motherese, a special type of language addressed to children (e.g. Fernald, 1989; Snow, 1986), to help the child enter the world of language. They also participate in child-adult interactions characterized by distinct features (formats, Bruner, 1983), which aid communication and language development.

By emphasizing the social function of language, this perspective posits that the structure of language is not independent of its use in context - the grammatical structures described by linguists are meaningless for infants unless they serve a practical function: understanding and making themselves understood (functionalism). Authors who support this idea investigate how infants arrive at linguistic abstractions by examining how they can be derived from social interaction.

Competence can only be measured by performance in context. But the conception of the competence-performance relationship, in relation to the role of the environment, has a unique feature: parents support infants to go beyond linguistic structures (scaffolding, Bruner), which enables effective communication despite the infant's primitive system. As a result, infants can appear more competent than they are in reality.

The origin of this theoretical perspective lies in Vigotski's view of the relationship between cognition and language in development, and the role of language in cognitive development. This is different from the Piagetian perspective.

The interactionist perspective posits the following: a) Humans are specially equipped to acquire language (physiological systems require maturation), but the definition of innate readiness is not shared with nativists. b) Cognitive development is critical - infants cannot acquire language until they reach a certain level of cognitive development. c) The environment is crucial for learning, and innate mechanisms alone cannot explain language proficiency (among other things because language includes all significant pragmatic aspects, acquisition of which is difficult to explain through innate mechanisms).

Children acquire language not only through their own mental activity in processing language and exploring the objects in the world, as suggested by the constructivist model, but also through mediation and assistance from adults. Interaction with others is necessary for language acquisition.

Source:

Perani, D. (1998). The bilingual brain. Proficiency and age of acquisition of the second language. Brain, 121(10), 1841–1852. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/121.10.1841.