Language Acquisition - Essay Example

Language Acquisition This essay shall be discussing a popular idea on Language acquisition as gleaned from researched theories on Language development. Specifically, it has chosen to discuss myth # 1 from the book of Lightbown and Spada. Upon establishing the grounds to prove or contest the idea with theoretical support, applications to practical examples from the author’s own experiences in language learning will be explored to drive the point. Myth # 1: Languages are learned mainly through imitation. Language acquisition and development has been a point of keen interest of educators, psychologists and researchers that numerous studies have been done to unveil more knowledge about it. The myth that “Languages are learned mainly through imitation” is such a shallow concept of language learning and undermines the great researches that have been dedicated to its study. No doubt, language may be learned through imitation, but the language learner does not stop at imitating a language model. He goes beyond that. There have been many theories conceptualized as to how language is acquired by human beings. Lindfors (1987) claims, “Virtually every child, without special training, exposed to surface structures of language in many interaction contexts, builds for himself – in a short period of time and at an early stage in his cognitive development – a deep-level, abstract, and highly complex system of linguistic structure and use. “( p. 90) This implies that every child is capable of learning language. Skinner’s Behaviorist Model of language acquisition is consistent with the rules of operant conditioning, based upon a stimulus-response model. Simply put, infants are presented with language which they imitate. They are rewarded for their imitations so they continue to repeat what they have heard. Their imitation does not have to be exact or immediate in order for them to make use of it in learning language (Brewer, 2001). However, as the child grows, imitation should approximate the accurate pronunciation of words. According to the behaviorist view, an individual is reinforced (positively or negatively) for responses to various stimuli, hence, the external environment plays a great part in the formation of behaviors. By administering positive reinforcement such as praising or smiling when a desired behavior occurs and administering negative reinforcement such as scolding or correcting when an undesired behavior occurs, one is assumed to encourage the desired behavior and make it more likely that that behavior will recur (Lindfors, 1987). The Behaviorist theory of language acquisition reigned supreme in the period of its introduction. However, it was unable to explain many things related to language development. One is the fact that much of children’s language is constructed in ways that have never been modeled by mature speakers. If adults talk to children without errors, howcome children’s language may still be filled with grammatical errors? It is also puzzling to behaviorists that they can offer no explanation as to how regressions in children’s language happen. An example is that a young child will use the past tense of the word “go” as “went” correctly, however, as he matures and generalizes the rules for constructing past-tense verbs, he replaces went with goed, not realizing that “go” is an irregular verb. (Brewer, 2001). This is “evidence that language learners do not simply internalize a great list of imitated and memorized sentences” (Lightbown & Spada, 2006, p. 183). They need to learn ways on how others will be able to understand them better. The Behaviorist theory is also criticized in the way it handles or fails to handle the patterning of language which can be described in linguistic science. He wrote almost as if linguistic science never existed, making little reference either to traditional grammar or to any other variety of grammar. He developed a sort of psychological grammar which conventionalized patterns of language play only a small part. The rules of transformations in grammar cannot be explained by this theory. It likewise could not provide for the role of memory, of “private behavior”, of intuition and of many other phenomena recognized but not directly accessible to public observation. “Finally, as a major criticism of the Skinnerian theory of language one could say that it is primarily a psychology of the production of language rather than of the reception of language. It talks about how people learn to produce language but it says little about how people learn to understand it.” (Carroll, 1962) On the other hand, the behaviorist point of view is valid in terms of children learning to speak the languages of their homes. Much observation concludes that children learn to produce the sounds needed in their native languages and to eliminate the sounds that are not required. Children also learn to repeat words and phrases that they hear around them even when they do not know what they mean. Ausubel’s Cognitive Learning theory contends that learning takes place through meaningful processes of relating new events to already existing cognitive concepts or propositions. He contrasts rote learning from meaningful learning in that rote learning is the acquisition of material as “discrete and relatively isolated entities that are relatable to cognitive structure only in an arbitrary and verbatim fashion, not permitting the establishment of meaningful relationships” (Ausubel, 1968, as qtd in Brown, 1987, p.65). Meaningful learning, in contrast, is a process of relating and anchoring new material to relevant established entities in cognitive structure. “Ausubel’s theory of learning has important implications for second language learning and teaching. Too much rote activity, at the expense of meaningful communication in language classes, could stifle the learning process.” (Brown, 1987, p. 69). According to Lev Vygotsky, social interaction stimulated by speech is essential for language development. He also mentions that a supportive interactive environment can help the child to reach a higher level of knowledge and performance compared to what might be reached through his or her ability to improve independently (Lightbown and Spada, 2006, p. 23). Taking together Skinner’s, Ausubel’s and Vygotsky’s theories, it can be summarized that language is learned through reinforcing successful imitations of language that is meaningful for the learner and enhanced in social interactions. The old way of teaching a second language through grammar-based texts yield less meaningful results if content is not integrated into language. There is a growing consensus that language can be more quickly and effectively learned if it is taught in context (Herrero, 2005), which is done by shifting the focus of instruction from the learning of language per se to the learning of language through the study of subject matter (Stryker & Leaver, 1997). Among the available strategies in teaching and learning a foreign language, it has been found that those that focus on both content and language as the most effective. Students are more motivated to learn another language if they find the content interesting to them, and the teaching approach more exciting to engage their prolonged attention and retention of concepts. This is consistent with the theory of Ausubel, emphasizing meaning in learning a second language. Personally, I can attest to this, as I have learned more about the English language through experiences that I found meaningful. Learning English as a second language for me has been filled with meaningful experiences that motivated me to go on, despite the challenges that came with it. I am a living proof of the theories discussed, that is why I agree with the behaviorists’ concept of language learning through imitation, repetition and reinforcement; interactionists’ concept of social influence in language learning and Ausubel’s need for meaning in order to learn language. My current studies in International Relations may have had its origins in my youth when I realized that English is the international language. I was in Japan, armed with a sprinkling of ready Japanese phrases to help me get around when I learned that everywhere I go, whenever there were tourists like me around, the Japanese locals spoke to them in English whether they were fluent or not. I was amazed at this phenomenon and impressed at the efforts the Japanese locals exerted, and that inspired me to take the first step in my journey to learning English as a second language. I enrolled in a school which taught English, and as expected, there were textbooks, drills and exercises. I had to repeat words after my teacher and learn a whole textbook by heart, as the behaviorists consider imitation and practice the principal processes in language development (Lightbown and Spada, 2006, p. 9). It was mostly a matter of acquiring basic vocabularies and conversation skills. I was required to write down all the basic conversations and vocabularies ten times, and listen to the cassette tapes, before attending the class. I had my share of homework too, and opportunities to do show what I have learned in class through written and oral tests. The whole system was designed for me to be immersed in the language, so pure imitation and rote memory were not the only cognitive skills involved but also a whole lot of higher-thinking skills. Mastery of the language entailed understanding the context of the sentences and choosing situations where it was appropriate to use. My social interactions with people more fluent in the English language and my English-related experiences further solidified my learning of this second language. The external motivations inspired by observing native English speakers roll out the words so smoothly to communicate effectively, as well as being able to approximate such skill and be praised for it, urged me to go on and take up the challenge of advancing my English skills. I believe, this married off the behaviorist concept of reinforcement and the interactionist concept of social learning. Being conversational in the English language meant I had to have a repertoire of a good number of vocabulary words at my disposal, be proficient in grammar and pronounce the words well. This, I learned from my intermediate class in another English-learning institution. My teachers there modeled conversational English and corrected us of errors we made and explained to us why they were erratic. I observed the same thing in my classroom observation of a Spanish class. Whenever a mistake was made by the student, the teacher corrects it in such a way that the class learns from that mistake. That way, being corrected did not intimidate them in attempting to speak in a foreign language, as opposed to some teachers who impatiently correct and humiliate students who commit mistakes. Correction like the ones my teachers did took an enormous amount of respect and trust for each other in the class as well as an openness to feedback. As I become more empowered by my skill in this second language, I get to apply it in my practical life. It is amazing that the more I know, the more I learn. For instance, I get to notice subtle details in another English speaker and learn about his background and culture. In Australia, I noticed that people kept inserting the word “mate” in their sentences to reflect a positive relationship with the person addressed. I was able to assume that ‘mate’ may be used in Australia whenever anyone is spoken to in a friendly way, and I too started to use it without question. Thus, Richard Schmidt’s ‘noticing’ hypothesis can be employed in this case: to learn something, it first has to be noticed (Lightbown and Spada, 2006, p. 44). He also states that acquisition of a second language may start once the learner becomes aware of a language feature (p. 45). Similarly, according to connectionism (p. 41), learners eventually make connections between language features in a particular situational or linguistic sense after repeatedly hearing the features. This may be unconscious, but it shows how people adjust to others for purposes of good communication and harmonious relations. In sum, I can apply the theories discussed in my learning English as my second language. Although these theories may overlap in its application to my case, I can personally delineate which was prevalent at each stage of my journey: The behaviorist theory (repetitions, reinforcement and positive feedback) was mainly employed when I was beginning to learn English. As I advanced, learning through social interaction seems to have had a great influence on my fluency, with the behaviorist theory as its basis, since I was positively encouraged by others through praises for my efforts at speaking the language. Now that I can claim more proficiency in my second language, I am able to connect what I know with what I observe in others. However, I do not claim to be a master English speaker as yet, I have a long way to go and to learn. I am just proud to know that my journey has been successful so far, since the combination of different theories and learning methods used to teach me, not to mention my own motivation to learn, were indeed a great fit that was personally appropriate for me. So the myth of languages being learned mainly through imitation is totally untrue, as there are multiple avenues to reach the destination of being a fluent language learner. References Brewer, J., (2001)Introduction to Early Childhood Education, Allyn & Bacon Brown, H.D. (1987) Principles of Language Learning and Teaching, 2nd Ed. NJ: Prentice Hall Regents Carroll, J.B. , The Critical Need in the Study of Language. College Composition and Communication, Vol. 13, No. 3, Annual Meeting, Chicago, 1962 (Oct.,1962), pp. 23-26. Herrero, A.H. (2005). “Content-Based Instruction in an English Oral Communication Course at the University of Costa Rica.” Actual Investigations in Education, Vol. 5, No. 4. Lightbown, P.M. & Spada, N. (2006). How Languages Are Learned. New York: Oxford University Press. Lindfors, J.W. (1987) Children’s Language and Learning, 2nd Ed. Prentice Hall, Inc. Stryker, S.N. & Leaver, B.L. (1997). “Content-Based Instruction in Foreign Language Education.” Washington DC: Georgetown University Press. Read More