This dissertation examines the principles of two current theories of first language acquisition and from them synthesizes a second language methodology. As a background to the problem of second language methodology, it is stated that the basing of second language methodologies on first language learning is currently being questioned and that the difficulty is compounded by varying theories of the nature of first language acquisition. The nativist position is examined, and a foreign language methodology developed on the basis of that position is then criticized in terms of the concerns of second language teachers. Following this, a compromise position between nativism and empiricism is examined and used as a basis for a second methodology. This second methodology is then criticized according to the above-mentioned criteria. The paper concludes that the nativist approach to first language acquisition is not a good basis for second language methodology, whereas some principles of the nativist-empiricist approach are. The major question remains whether such a methodology can be made effective. A further question is whether children learn a foreign language more quickly or more effectively than do adults. (Author/AM)