Language, Acquisition, and Teaching - Essay Example

?Language, Acquisition, and Teaching Introduction Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan (1985) has stipulated the supposition that language is a necessary construct, in which human beings have to create in order to remember human experiences. In effect, one of the primary tasks of language is the naming of the whole gamut of human experience and predicament, in order for human beings to make sense and find meaning in their human condition. The utilitarian rationale in the inception of language establishes a pragmatic ethos behind the necessity of ‘constructing language'. However, recent developments in neuroscience and linguistic theories have proposed the notion that there exists certain, “innate domain specific inventory of capacities that the child brings to the task of language learning” (Hohle, 2009, p. 361). This highlights the lively discourse pertinent to the process of language acquisition, specifically, when dealing with the issue of first language acquisition vis-a-vis second language acquisition. In this context, this research will delve on two significant issues, namely, “How far can the process of first language acquisition be taken as a model for the acquisition of a second language? What are the implications for the second language teachers?” For purposes of limitation and clarification, for this study the term “first language” pertains to the native language of a person, which has been acquired without undergoing formal learning processes to acquire the language, since it is the mother tongue of the person. It is the language the child learns from his/her parents, family, relatives, and from others (Yaz?c?, Ilter, and Glover, 2010). On the other hand, second language is another language acquired by the person, aside from her mother tongue. Second language is a language learnt after the first language and it is often contrasted with ‘foreign’ in terms of function and location (Cook 2006; 2008). For example, a four-year-old Indonesian child who speaks Bahasa Indonesia at home, while the child’s family reside in Netherlands, and therefore she studies Dutch. As such, the child is acquiring SL. On the other hand, a four-year-old Indonesian child whose family resides in Indonesia, speaks Bahasa Indonesia, studies Bahasa Indonesia in school; is therefore developing FLA alone. This distinction serves as a guide in understanding these two terms as it is used in the entire research. The paper recognises the broadness of the offered connotations of first language and second language. Nonetheless, what is essential is that through the minimal distinction provided between the two concepts, a parameter is set, thus, enabling the possibility of distinction between FLA and SLA. In addition, the paper also defines language acquisition as the subconscious process of developing language ability and that it is fostered in a non-threatening environment (Krashen, 1981). On the other hand, language learning is also a process of developing language ability, however, it occurs in academic setting and there is a conscious effort in knowing the syntax and semantics of a particular language (Krashen 1981). From this perspective, the paper asserts that aside from chronology and contrast with the term ‘foreign’, second language acquisition (SLA) is a process wherein the person as a student in an academic setting learns another language. It is a conscious endeavour to acquire a second language aside from one’s mother tongue. In this regard, the necessity of a shared framework between first language acquisition (FLA) and second language acquisition (SLA) becomes feasible as it offers the paradigm in which FLA becomes the initial framework in which sense and meaning of the second language is apprehended. In this regard, second language teachers are challenged to recognise not only the academic, language, and cognitive development of the learner, but they also have to learn to factor the socio-economic and cultural processes and other affective factors that influence the person as she goes though SLA. The paper is divided into four sections. The first part is the introduction and it presents the problem of the research, the definition of terms, the main argument of the research, and the structure of the paper. This serves as a guide as to what may be expected from the entire study. The second segment of the paper deals with the interaction between FLA and SLA in such a way that enhances acquisition of second language. This deals with the rudiments that pave for the interaction between FLA and SLA. The third part of the paper will tackle the influence and challenges of the interaction between FLA and SLA to second language teachers. This will help in identifying not only the possible concerns that may arise from the interaction between FLA and SLA, but it also deals with the probable solution that may be adapted to address the issues. Finally, the fourth section is the conclusion wherein the important points of the study will be reiterated and the main argument of the study reaffirmed. 2. First Language Acquisition and Second Language Acquisition: The Questioned Interaction By ascertaining the interaction between FLA and SLA, the paper works on the assumption that language acquisition does not occur in a vacuum, but there are factors whether internal or external, that is affecting the reality in which this interaction happens. Children’s acquisition of first language has been an enigma (Tahiri 2012). When children learn their first language, they “build on preexisting notions of what to represent with language as well as prior notions of communication. Or they could start from nothing and discover what it is (and isn’t) represented in language” (Clark, 2003, p. 2). This feat gives rise to the question, is it innate or empirical? (Tahiri, 2012). Innatism of FLA Several theories have been forwarded explaining FLA. These theories establish and explain the process in which FLA is attained. For those who espoused the innatism position, there is the generalised belief that there are intrinsic, innate, built in structures in the human brain that enable the child to acquire language. One of the theories supporting this is the generative approach (Chomsky 1959; Pinker 1994). Chomsky (1959) asserts the innateness of language acquisition by ascertaining that all children possess the necessary language acquisition device that allows the child to formulate the rules of language with minimal help and input from the environment. Pinker (1994), following Chomsky, has taken the step further by claiming that the innateness of FLA is not just like a black box in the brain, but it is in fact, a process of language acquisition which is basically anchored on brain wiring and neural connections that are in the brain. Pinker (1994) explained the generative approach by rooting the biological and evolutionary process that equips all children with the physiological set-up for language acquisition. In this context, children’s FLA happens because the human mind is structured in such a way that human language is ‘built-in’ in the human brain. As such, FLA is not necessarily an acquisition, but it is an “attribute of certain built-in properties to the mind, whether the ability to associate stimulus and response, or the knowledge of principles and parameters. The dispute is over how much and what aspects of language are innate…” (Johnson and Johnson, 1998, p. 170). However, the primary concern with generative approach in particular and innatism in general is the issue of language acquisition is in its pure form (Tahiri 2012). This means that knowledge of language is not simply anchored on syntax, but significant issues regarding semantics provide greater depth to knowledge of language. Furthermore, if semantics is not given its appropriate consideration, then one of the main purposes of language, understanding the world, is defeated (Hobbes, 1985). Since, language is primarily utilised to express, communicate, name, identify, and other similar activities that people undertake in order to make sense and meaning out of their human predicament (Nelson, 1985). The researcher is raising this position on the premise that much focus is given on syntax and the rule of language, when in fact, the context and condition of language is not happening in a vacuum nor an abstraction, but it is one tool that paves for memory, human interaction, and meaning ( my idea...needs reference). Empiricism of FLA Under this theory, language as a social construct is learned. There is no intrinsic and inherent human ability that is distinctly human, which enables a person to acquire language. Instead, there are certain psychological capacities that equip the human being to grasp language and determine its rudiments. From this perspective, it can be inferred that FLA is rooted on two coeval factors, the internal, and the external. The internal pertains to the psychological/mental makeup of the person whereas the external pertains to socio-cultural factors influencing the person. Lantolf (2000) asserts that human beings are capable of making not only physical tools but also symbolic tools that allow them to make meanings, control their physical environment, and attain cognitive development. In this sense, language as one of the most powerful cultural artefacts gifted to human beings allows for the connection among individuals, between the individual and the world, and within the individual to occur (Mitchell and Myles 2004). In this connection, the externality of language as being connected with the world and at the same time its capacity to reveal internal psychological and cognitive development establishes a correspondence between the world and the human experience. The relationship between the external and internal realm has no rigid demand for one-to-one correspondence as demanded by behaviourist-positivists (Mackenzie, 2006). Since, behaviourist- positivists asserts that word should refer to a particular instance, event, or thing and if it ceases to refer or signify to anything that can be substantiated or evidenced, then the language ceases to be meaningful. On the other hand, correspondence that is demanded by those adhering to the social construction of language and language acquisition is a malleable and flexible correspondence that allows the connection between the world, the individual, and within the person to happen without necessarily requiring rigid correspondence among the world, the individual, and the word. Some scholars maintain that this divide between innatism and empiricism in FLA is irreconcilable (Hawkins 2010). As such, scholars position themselves within this divide, each group ascertaining the validity and legitimacy of their respective arguments. This situation creates a bifurcated process for FLA. If one asserts the innatism, then one adopts the development of language acquisition device that will trigger the appropriate neural wiring and networks in the brain. Whereas, if one supports empiricism and holds social constructionist, then FLA is approached via harnessing the environment, the tools, and the interaction that will help the individual or the child achieve language acquisition. FLA and SLA: An Analysis of the Possibility of a Working Partnership Some SLA theories are also anchored on the articulation of FLA. Using the same arguments, it has been asserted by the innatist-nativists that second language acquisition can also be explained by the innate, intrinsic built-in neural wirings in the human brain that allows the learner to gain second language learning (Tahiri, 2012). On the other hand, social constructivist, cognitivitist, and behaviourist (in varying degrees) assert that environment as well as internal psychological makeup of the individual are both crucial in creating the paradigm wherein SLA becomes possible. In this condition, how can the process of FLA be taken as a model for SLA, when FLA processes are bereft with dichotomy? In effect, it shows that the divide in FLA is carried over in SLA. In this context, the research is offering Merlaeu-Ponty’s concept of being-in-the-world as the conceptual means in which to bridge the divide between FLA and SLA. Merleau-Ponty (1962) in his Phenomenology of Perception argued that the “human body is lived through; it is that through which objects are presented and experienced…”(162) This categorization of the human body moves beyond the long tradition of dichotomy in understanding the body vis-a-vis the mind, of the active and the passive, of the subject and the object. The acknowledgement that “My body has its world, or understands its world without having to make use of my symbolic or objectifying function” (Merleau-Ponty, 1962, p.141), has opened the possibility for the body to be deemed as “the site through which perception takes place” (Carey 2000, p 24). Thus, knowledge that is presented to persons via the experience of the active body and not the body acting as a mere passive receptor of external stimuli. In effect, it becomes the response to the faculty of human beings inhering in the world. This concept of inhering into the world, or being into the world has long been articulated but only in light of choosing between the mind giving meanings or culture defining experience via the construction of language. Here, Merleau-Ponty is pointing to the wisdom of the body in its all naturality as it is seen as an integral part of the world itself. It is not removing the body from the realm of the experience but that it is acknowledging that the body has its own way of gesticulating the world in itself. As such, the “body has a thickness, a presence and a form just as the world objects do because it is like the world’s objects and is one of them” (Merleau-Ponty, 1962, p. 133) Thus “in the last analysis, if my body can be a form and if there can be, in front of it, important figures against indifferent backgrounds, this occurs in virtue of being polarized by its tasks, of its existence toward them, of its aims; the body is finally a way of stating that my body is-in – the- world” (Merleau-Ponty, 1962, p. 102) Thus, ”the lived world is ours through the lived-body; it rests on a perceptual faith that is prior to conceptual articulation” (Merleau-Ponty, 1962, p. 204) This assertion recognizes the integral role that the body plays in human existence, in human life. The body is no longer just considered as the conduit to the external world but that since it is in itself part of the world it becomes the only means with which the world can be apprehended. It is prior to all rational discourse, conceptions and formulation of the human mind. In this regard, the paper is offering the supposition that FLA processes serve as the fundamental tenet in which secondary language acquisition is achieved. This argument bridges innatism and empiricism by ascertaining that the body is part of the physical realm, and as such, it possesses the innate built-in human. At the same time, it affirms the integral role of society and culture as necessary in the construction of language as critical in creating meanings out of human experience. In this regard, both FLA and SLA works together in establishing the frameworks in which language acquisition becomes integrated in the human condition both as part of physical set-up and social and cultural conditions and structures. This argument raises the following suppositions. (1) By recognising the human body as an integral part of the physical realm, the paper affirms the innateness of language acquisition. However, it does not end there. Human interaction, society, culture and the body being-in-the world defines the human experience (Merleau-Ponty, 1962 but this is basically my analysis...needs reference), thus necessitating the construction of language that helps the individual make sense and meaning of the experience vis-a-vis the fact the human person is equipped with the innate neural wiring to grasp the rules of language(my analysis of Merleau-Ponty, 1962; Chomsky, 1959; Pinker, 1994... needs reference). This reality holds true to both FLA and SLA. Hence, means used in FLA can also be used in SLA. Processes adopted for FLA can be used in SLA as the difference between FLA and SLA is no longer resting on the perceived inherent difference between L1 users and L2 users, but on the condition and context in which language acquisition happens, the environment in which it is observed, and the language constructs of each particular society. (2) The goals and endpoints of FLA and SLA are transformed in such a way that it becomes the same. Table 1 In the Condition of Dichotomy Endpoint of Language Acquisition First Language Acquisition Second Language Acquisition 1. Communication X 2. Expression X 3. Cognitive Development X 4. Academic Development X 5. Membership to a Particular Local Community X 6. Human Experience X 7. Tool X 8. Symbol X 9. Human Nature X 10. Rules X Table 2 The Shared Processes for FLA and SLA Endpoint of Language Acquisition FLA and SLA Communication, Expression, Cognitive Development, Academic Development, Membership to a Particular Local Community, Human Experience, Tool, Symbol, Social Inclusion, Manifests Human Nature, Syntax and Semantics This highlights the supposition that by bridging the gap between the theories supporting FLA and SLA, the differences in goals and endpoints between SLA and FLA are eliminated. Hence, establishing the possibility of coming up with a common standard and agenda for FLA and SLA. At the same time, the researcher holds that by emphasizing the similarity in supporting theories between SLA and FLA the bias towards ‘native speakers’ may be removed (my analysis of Cook, 2006; 2008). This is crucial in the face of globalisation. Globalisation thrives in pluralism. The idea of native speakers is abstracted from reality, “The native speaker is, moreover, a monolingual, monocultural abstraction: he/she is one who speaks only his/her (standardized) native tongue and lives by one (standardized) national culture. In reality, most people partake in various languages or language varieties and live by various cultures and subcultures.” (Kramsch, 1998, pp. 79-80). Thus, the common processes for FLA and SLA offers a new paradigm in approaching language acquisition – one that flourishes in pluralism and diversity. (3) The shared grounds in which both FLA and SLA are understood establishes the framework in which the condition and context of language acquisition becomes the crucial factors determinative of the differences between L1 and L2 users. In this regard, there is a need to go beyond the divide in the theoretical approach to both FLA and SLA in order to arrive at shared processes that will enable FLA in becoming the initial framework in which sense and meaning of SL may be attributed. This condition has significant implication to second language teachers. 3. The Implications to Second Language Teachers Considering the possibility of shared common ground between FLA and SLA, second language teachers face new challenges and these are (1) The challenge to recognise the context and condition of second language learners as determinative of the motivations and rationale for acquiring another language becomes a critical point in SLA. This is going beyond the socio-cultural processes. It incorporates the reality of pluralism, uniqueness of the individual, physicality of the process, and flexibility of language acquisition. (2) It necessitates the need to go beyond the myths posited in SLA and address the issue of SLA from concrete and authentic conditions of SLA (McLaughlin 1992). These are (i) Each one of us possess an innate capacity for language acquisition regardless of age. This means that the teacher should not expect more from children or demand less from adult learners. Thus, it increases the need for second language teachers in coming up with programmes that suits the actual needs and conditions of their students and not their perceptions. (ii) Quality, phase, and degree of language acquisition are determined by the condition and context of the learner. This implies that although the teacher may cluster the class according to similarities of students, still the uniqueness of students should be the primary basis for the construction of lessons and programmes. (3) Understanding the integral connection between innatism and empiricism in language acquisition demands that the teacher should consider both the environment in which the second language is learned and the innate capacity of the student. This means creating activities that can satisfy both innatist and empriricist. The teacher can use several approaches that target this situation. For instance, the teacher can use different genres of the literature of the target language to know the increasing reading and understanding level of students. The teacher may also use talking to self and role-playing in harnessing the student’s sense of self as a second language learner. The teacher may conjure other similar activities that can be used in order harness the shared grounds between SLA and FLA. (4) It challenges second language teachers to be more innovative and creative in their teaching styles. Since, they now have a wide array of processes that can be drawn from both FLA and SLA processes. Their creativeness and innovativeness is crucial on how they can combine the best processes for secondary language students while using FLA processes, SLA processes, or both. (5) Finally, there is the continuing demand for the teacher to show respect to the inherent diversity in the class. There is also the constant challenge of recognising the strength, weakness, and potential of students and how this knowledge can be used in the formulation of lectures and activities. Moreover, there is the incessant challenge for teachers to be sensitive and be aware of when students need actually need help and when they need to be alone and learn by themselves ( personal observation as I am currently studying Dutch-beginners level; Garza, nd; Scott, 2010). This is crucial, as it recognises not only respect, but also the student centeredness of the entire second language-learning/acquisition endeavour. In this regard, the shared common grounds in which FLA and SLA processes meet create a demand for SL teachers to capitalise on the commonality of the inherent capacity of students while at the same time, recognising and respecting the reality and diversity of students’ condition, context, and environment. It is a difficult feat, but it is cognizant of the manifest humanity of the students and of their human predicament. 4. Conclusion In this paper, it was shown that the various theories supporting and explaining FLA are primordial in stipulating the processes for FLA. However, it has been observed that existing theories are currently embroiled in a debate regarding the issue of innatism in FLA or empiricism in FLA. This dichotomy has resulted not only in divergent views regarding FLA but different approaches to its implementation. In this regard, this study proposes that by using Merleau-Ponty’s discourse on being-in-the-world the dichotomy in FLA theories may be possibly bridged. This possibility offers a new paradigm and approach to both FLA and SLA - a shared ground for both its theories and processes. This is maintained on the premise that as the innate ability to grasp language is built-in the human brain, it also recognises and affirms the crucial role of environment, condition, and context in language acquisition. Thus, it creates the situation wherein SL teachers are challenged to become more innovative and creative in their handling of subject matter as they can draw approaches not only from SL angle, but also from FLA perspective. The researcher recognises the tentativeness of using Merleau-Ponty’s being-in-the-world since it does not yet take into account the issue of age in language acquisition and focus has been centred on environment, context, and condition of the learner. It is, indeed discussed in varied ways by various theories. However, this research is different as it builds on the bridging the divide between innatist-nativists and behaviourist-socio-constructivist-cognitivist by ascertaining that the person being in-the-world is not a dichotomous or dual reality but a perceptible reality of human beings’ physiological realm that is made understandable through meanings and sense via constructed language. In effect, bridging the gap between innatism and empiricism in language acquisition in both FLA and SLA opens more approaches, shared grounds, similarities that can further and foster both FLA and SLA. Bibliography Carey,S. (2000). ‘Cultivating ethos through the body’, Human Studies, 23(1), pp 23 – 42 Chomsky, N. (1959). “Review of ‘Verbal Behavior’ by B. F. Skinner’, Language, 35, pp. 26-58. Clark, E. V. (2003). First language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cook, V.J. (2006). ‘Interlanguage, multi-competence and the problem of the “second” language’, Rivista di Psicolinguistica Applicata, VI(3), pp. 39-52. Cook, V.J. (2008). ‘Linguistic contributions to bilingualism’, in J. Altaribba & R. Heredia (eds), An Introduction to Bilingualism: Principles and Practice, Erlbaum, 245-264 Garza, E.A. (nd). Second Language Acquisition, Retrieved at ell.tamucc.edu/files/module­_2_script.pdf Accessed on 7 June 2013. Hobbes, T (1985). Leviathan, London: Penguin Books. Hohle, B.( 2009). ‘Bootstrapping mechanisms in first language acquisition’, Linguistics, 47(2), pp. 359 -382. Johnson, K., & Johnson, H. Eds. (1998). Encyclopedic dictionary of applied linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. Kramsch, C. (2006). ‘From communicative competence to symbolic competence’, The Modern Language Journal, 90, pp. 249-252 Krashen, S. D. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning, Oxford: Pergamon press Lantolf, J. P. Ed. (2000). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Mackenzie, B.D. (2006). ‘Behaviourism and Positivism’, Journal of the History of Behavioral Science, 8(2), pp. 222 – 231. McLaughlin, B. (1992). Myths and misconceptions about second language learning: what every teacher needs to unlearn. University of California, Santa Cruz Merleau-Ponty, M. (1962). ‘The Phenomenology of Perception’. Trans by, Colin Smith, New Jersey: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Mitchell, R. & Myles, R. (2004). Second language learning theories (2nd ed.). London: Edward Arnold. Nelson, K. (1985). Making Sense: the acquisition of shared meaning, CA: Academic Press. Pinker, S. (1994). The Language Instinct, London: Penguin Books. Scott, V. M. (2010). Double talk: Deconstructing monolingualism in classroom second language learning. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Tahiri, A. (2012) ‘Revisiting first language acquisition through empirical and rational perspectives’, ERIC. Yaz?c?, Z., Ilter, B. G., & Glover, P. (2010). ‘How bilingual is bilingual? Mother-tongue proficiency and learning through a second language’, International Journal of Early Years Education, 18(3), pp. 259 – 268. Read More