Dear Liqaa 

Such kind of discussion related to theories of learning. Some theories focus on the role of nature in developing learners' language while others focus on nurture.

I think that it is more complex than two choices.

Our first language is usually learned without any kind of formal instruction.  We learn it naturally.  Second languages are most often learned via formal instruction.  

Sometimes that formal instruction is artificial (Like lecture/memorization).  

Sometimes it creates an environment similar to natural learning, i.e. authentic use of the language and "filling in the gaps" when we encounter new words.  I think this is the best approach.

Dear Michael W. Marek 

This means that in all cases , it is innate specifically for learning the first language and its learned if it is related to second language. 

Thank you so much for your valuable answer. 

Liqaa 

Mixture of the two above mentioned criteria.

Emad

Both are relevant, but I tend to focus on nurture, because that means I can really do something to learn and help someone learn.

Thank you so much for your answer dear Khansaa Hassan Al-Bahadli.  But can you clarify these theories please. 

Liqaa 

Thank you Emad Kamil Hussein for your answer. 

Liqaa 

Dear Aparecida de Araújo Oliveira 

I agree with you that nurturing is most important specifically for second language learning. 

Thank you so much for your enriching answer. 

Liqaa 

Dear Liqaa Habeb,

Thank you for bringing in this issue. I agree with you in that 1st and 2nd language are quite different in terms of acquisiton. Specially, I would not forget that FL learners usually have a rich conceptual system to start with, that may foster or hinder acquisition of L2.

Hello Liqaa Habeb,

Notably, human's ability of language acquisition has given rise to a long-established controversy known as  nature-nurture debate. The main question has been: Is language acquisition and development innate or taught?  The proponents of the nature position ( e.g., Chomsky) called nativists  maintain that language acquisition is an innate ability and  human brain is pre-programmed with biologically endowed mechanisms  for language acquisition and use ( see Chomsky's theory of language known as Universal Grammar ).By contrast, those who favor the nurture theory of language acquisition  are called empiricists (e.g., B.F. Skinner) who contend that  humans are capable of language learning based on making associative links among environmental stimuli consolidated by reinforcement. However, as you have rightly posed in the question,  which of the two positions are really involved in language acquisition/learning process? Differently stated, Is it either nature or nurture in language acquisition, or is it both nature and nurture?  The dominant position today is a middle of the road approach stating that language acquisition involves a little bit of both. The reason is that different aspects of human behavior can be described in light of cumulative influences of both genetic and environmental aspects. Maybe this is also true for language acquisition. Genetic features like  large brain or nutritional requirements have pre-wired humans to develop a unique vocal apparatus , which has been shaped and developed into a full-fledged communication system  as a consequence of environmental factors such as education, family, society, etc.

Best regards,

R. Biria

Precise response  dear Aparecida de Araújo Oliveira.  Thank you so much for your answer. 

Liqaa 

Dear Prof.Reza Biria 

It is my happiness to read your amazing coverage to the subject under discussion. Each time you comment , I learn something.  So , thank you so much for sharing your valuable opinions. This is first.  Second, I go with you that we must follow the "middle of the road approach " for the reasons that you mentioned above . But in fact I sometimes wonder if there is any effects of nature on second language learning. 

Liqaa 

I have read Reza Biria's comments and agree to that. Perhaps it is wise in this case to distinguish between acquiring language and learning language. This can be linked to Nature: informal, spontaneous, wthout  instructions versus Nurture: formal, with instrctions (of teachers) in classroom environment etc.

If I can add a bit to Reza Biria's answer. One of the main differences between empiricism and innatism is about the nature of language. For innatists, language is a unique kind of knowledge/skill that requires a 'specialist' (hardwired) learning/acquisition system/device. For empiricists, language is just another kind of knowledge/skill that can be learned/acquired using generic learning/acquisition systems/devices. 

You are absolutely right dear Ronald Severing.  Thank you so much for sharing your valuable opinions. 

Liqaa 

Living in a multi-ethnic and multi-cultural country, Malaysia, I would say it is nurture in a sense of living in an environment that encourages the development of linguistic prowess. I have met small kids (6-7 years old) who speak fluent Malay, Tamil, Cantonese and/or other dialects without being formally taught any of these languages. 

(Regarding  the definitions of the terms. My understanding of Nature vs Nurture might be different from some responses here. Nature, to me, does not relate to informal or spontaneous learning. Rather, it's about individuals' innate (perhaps, perceived) ability to learn languages. Nurture, to me, relates not only to formal schooling but also to the general environment -- e.g., monolingual vs multilingual.) 

I believe it is a nurture issue, but we can’t ignore the nature role here.

There is the case of the code switching which happens naturally even in the first language and it appears in learning and acquiring the foreign language.

When the learner switches between the two languages, L1 and FL, then he builds his own interlanguage, which makes him develop his FL on the basis of L1. This strategy was proved to be beneficial by many language experts and professors.

You can study Rod Ellis approach in Second Language Acquisition, 1997.

Motivation is the key. In any situation. The learner has to have a compelling reason to learn to another language. While there are certainly people with learning disabilities in regard to L2 acquisition, most who are determined enough can gradually gain the level competence they desire or need.

Thank you dear Martin Willis for your outstanding addition. 

Liqaa 

Yes , you are right dear Larisa Nikitina.  In multilingual communities , the importance of nurture being prominent. Thank you so much for sharing your valuable experience. 

Liqaa 

Hello

The innate learning of the language undoubtedly gives a greater chance of mastery, but experience has shown that learning the language in the study may achieve impressive results if there is serious learning and high desire

I agree with Dr. Nikitina that it's "nurture." Intentionally or unintentionally we pick up or learn language through socialization--a form of "nurture." We also pick up language from the mass media, which is a part of our lives at present. To acquire the second or foreign language, therefore, one needs to have interactions in which one can pick up and feel the language. Having formal ESL/EFL classes also helps as we also learn our native tongue in school to be able to communicate better. 

Dear Sanaa abu saleh 

Thank you so much for sharing your valuable opinions.  I highly appreciate them. 

Liqaa 

 You are right dear Stephen A. Sadow . Motivation is vital in such context.  Thank you so much for your enriching answer. 

Liqaa 

Outstanding answer dear Mazin Alsalman.  Thank you so much for your answer. 

Liqaa 

Very precise dear Cameen Kettanun.  Thank you so much for your answer. 

Liqaa 

Nature remains the very basic existence of human being . Nature demands the approach of the life ,his code of conduct & behavior ,his temperament ,his feelings ,his ambitions & other related action of his life which may help the person in which way he should build the action of his life performance .

When we refer the acquisition of foreign language it clearly indicates that he have nurtured to be equipped with the foreign language if nature correlates with nurture it creates binding effect to complete the action of the performance & in his line nature & nurture both are the instinct of human beings .

This is personal opinion 

Dear Rohit M Parikh 

Outstanding coverage as usual.  Thank you so much for sharing your personal opinion .

Liqaa 

Hi 

Both of them are very correlated but I think nurture effects second language learning more than first language acquisition.

Both nature and nurture are vital in the learning of a second/foreign language. While innate tools are very important in second language learning, nurture cannot be relegated to the background. An EFL/ESL learner must primarily be "language-ready" before considering conditions under which the target language could be learnt. By being language-ready I mean that the learner should have ears that can hear and mouth that can speak otherwise they may require special linguistic tools to aid learning. 

With language-readiness  in place, the age, maturity and background of the learner must also come to bear. With all these in place, the learner can be streamed in his social environment and allowed to pick the language as a functional tool. He learns to greet, to make requests, to ask for direction, to lend a hand and to interact with other users of the target language in a "natural" environment. This way, he learns through socialisation. 

In a formal setting, nature and nurture still play vital and balanced roles in language learning. The learner is taught some basic principles of the language (through signs, pictorials, recordings, audiovisuals, and any other available language that is understood by both the instructor and the learner). The nature of the already acquired language will greatly determine the tools which the learner would bring into the target language, hence "interference". 

As a wrap up, in the learning of a foreign language, neither nature nor nurture is more vital than the other. They are equally essential in EFL/ESL situation.

Dear Elisha Eddie 

Very precise coverage to the subject under discussion.  I highly appreciate your rich answer. Thank you so much for sharing your valuable opinions. 

Liqaa 

It's nature. With the UG every learner can learn a second language naturally and though there are some errors occurred the process continues to acquisition of a l2.

Both for me-nature and nurture.

Dear Jurana Aziz 

You are utterly right. Thank you so much for your enriching answer. 

Liqaa 

 Thank you so much for your answer dear Anirbid Sircar. 

Liqaa 

I agree with Anirbid Sircar

Humans, by their innate nature, love to learn to observe things so they can be natural, as well as to learn the foreign language they wish to learn and will be easy when they are a lover of this language

Greetings

I agree with Dr.Azhar oppnion

Dear Azhar Abdulameer Sosa 

By nature (innate abilities) we mean the physical abilities that come with the child from from his born. We his nature prevent him from learning this means that he suffers from a health problems. I appreciate your continuous participation and I like to thank you so much. 

Liqaa 

Thanks a lot Ali hadi Ghawi for your answer. 

Liqaa 

The most vital for the acquisition of a foreign language is nature. This is because the people who learn a foreign language in which the language used naturally will improve a foreign learner's language competence and language performance naturally.

The answer for the second question is that human beings learn to use language in a wide variety of settings in innate. The childen who follow their parents to study abroad can use a foreign language easily because their mental and memory storage can store all new information in large capacities  than adults. This is because, adults have millions information storaged in their memory storage which potentially make disorder in their mental lexicon. On the other hand, the language is taught means people learn a foreign language then express it in daily life in varous purposes, but adults face difficulties to remember the vocabularies in long time and use those vocabularies in their conversation. Therefore, it is believed that innate  potentially makes someone to be competent in a certain language than learning the language through classroom interaction.

Dear Liqaa Habeb,

The first language is "acquired," subsequent languages "learned." It means, that acquisition is more influenced by genetic factors (if there is, at least, some  satisfactory human environment), for learning subsequent languages environment (stimulation) is more important. In the first case the emphasize is an hereditary factors, in the second on social factors.

Best regards,

Lajos Göncz

Outstanding answer dear Sukardi Weda.  I like the way you justify the importance of nature for learning both first and second language. Thank you so much for sharing your valuable opinions. 

Liqaa 

 Dear Lajos Goencz

Your answer is utterly right specifically it applies to acquisition/learning hypothesis by Krashen. Thank you so much for your valuable answer. 

Liqaa 

A foreign language can be learnt only by nurturing as it is not innate unless a person lives in the country of a foreign language

Dear Sundarachariar Padmasani Kannan 

I agree with you totally. This is my viewpoint also.  Thank you so much for your answer. 

Liqaa 

I agree with you dear Sundarachariar Kannan. I like your response. 

Thank you so much for your answer dear colleagues. 

Liqaa 

تحية طيبة الافضل أن يتعلم الطالب لغته الأصلية ثم يكتسب اللغات الاخرى

No doubt dear Dr ابتسام صالح الزويني. Thank you so much for your answer. 

Liqaa 

I would rather go for nurture or (to put it more accurately) teaching of a foreign language. This is the most available option at least. Everybody with serious intentions can learn any language to a certain level. Nature can be an integral part of this process but it is not everybody's ability and needs it can satisfy. I live in a place in the UK where a Portuguese community never really needed to learn English so - especially the elderlies - got away of living in a country whose language they can hardly speak for about half century! Amazing but true. On the contrary, foreign professionals cannot afford not to learn the language of the country they live in at a satisfactory level at least .

Dear Christos Apostolakis

You are utterly right. Your example is amazing that it sheds the light on another areas of this kind of variables relation. Thank you so much for sharing your valuable experience.

Liqaa

Both of them are important dear.

Thank you so much dear Dr Arwa Abdulrasoul Salman for your cooperation.

Liqaa

Learning any language becomes spontaneous if one happens to live there.It may be spoken form, but when you learn to read and write, it becomes nurtured

Thank you so much dear Dr Sundarachariar Padmasani Kannan for your cooperation.

Liqaa

I'd say both. One (nature) is about the natural ability/readiness to learn and the other (nurture) is about the environment that provides the data/corpus to help children actively construct and gradually acquire the language they are exposed to.

Thank you.

Dear Ms. Liqaa

As a second language learner of English. I used to practice my English besides studying it in the English center. It helped me so much to improve my English. For this reason, I would love to say any learner needs practicing more than anything else. For nature and nurture, honestly it is really complicated because the scholars have had controversy about which one is more needed to acquire English.

Thanks

Hayder