Linguistic Relativity and Second Language Acquisition - Essay Example

Linguistic Relativity and Second Language Acquisition Linguistic Relativity and Second Language Acquisition Human beings are precarious creatures and unique to the rest of the world in terms of their ability to adapt and create different language subsets based on their culture and sphere of influence. Infants begin this process of learning a language largely by association, and by a relatively early age humans are communicating with one another in a clear and concise manner. Acquiring a second language, however, takes on another process altogether and this speaks to the concept of linguistic relativity and second language acquisition. Linguistic relativity has become an increasing focus of language teaching on a global scale in recent years, yet many questions still remain about the best practices inherent in helping a person to acquire a second language. This discussion centers on various relationship that coexist between linguistic relativity and second language learners, particular in cases where the student is being taught a monolingual native speakers. The central components of second language acquisition are the setting of goals, development of curriculum, and implantation of research proven methods and instructional techniques that have proven successful across a broad spectrum of cultures. Prior to linguists developing a concept of universal grammar, languages were largely consider to differ greatly from one another in countless ways that were largely incomprehensible to the average layperson. Because cognition was also though to vary in a similarly convoluted manner, language teaching was quite difficult, if not outright impossible in the case of many of the world’s languages. To acquire a second language, in the historical sense, required an individual being able to attain a completely new set of concepts and ideas that were, as yet, unknown to him or her. It was not a simple case of, for example, learning the subjunctive tense in the French language, as the meaning was also critical to a thorough understanding of the language as well (Swan, 2009). Some scholars in the field of linguistic relativity have conceded that learning a second language entails a process that not only incorporates the language itself, but also the development of an understanding of the culture that gave birth to it in the first place (Byram, 2007). In essence, this process creates a feeling of intercultural competence on the part of the individual attempting to acquire a second language. In many cases, schools are adapting to this process by providing students with courses detailing various aspects of another culture, without necessarily incorporating language learning into the possible. Another possibility is to encourage students to study literature from another culture that is available in translation. Once students gain an understanding of the culture, then language teaching begins and much success has been shown in them more easily acquiring the second language as a result of first better understanding the mindset of the people. This finding reveals that linguistic relativity is as much about social customs of the language group as much as it is about social customs. In fact, Cook (2010) found that, “Linguistic relativity is the possession of a community rather than thought patterns, the knowledge in the mind of an individual”. This demonstrates that second language acquisition is made increasingly possible when taken into context of the overall cultural divide that exists between the first and second language groups. Through the years, the teaching of language has essentially taken the position that the language is the most important component of acquiring the ability to speak multiple languages, but linguists now understand that this is far from the truth. To illustrate this, consider the reality that one popular method of teaching languages back in the 1960s and 1970s incorporated the use of audiovisual resources, and was largely based on the theory of structural globalism (Robinson, 2011). This theory served to highlight the association of various visa images with the creation of complete sentences in the language being learned. This method would typically have beginners repeating sentences in response to pictures that were shown, whether this be via a film strip filled with cartoons that were project on a screen, or in a book. When the picture was shown, the student would recite a relearned sentence to represent what they have just seen. In this way, language teachers discovered that students can learn to associate a picture with a sentence by saying it in a repetitive manner, in accordance with the sentence itself that was taught to the student prior to be showing the picture. Over time, however, various laws were seen in this theory, particular when it came to descriptive words. There was no one way to ensure that a student truly understand why, for example, one picture showed a woman that was debonair, while another showed a woman that was eccentric. These words depend on an understanding of the culture in which the language resides, which until recently did not form a basis for linguistic relativity, and was not seen to be of critical importance when considering second language acquisition. In recent years, the methodology behind linguistic relativity, particularly when it related to methods used in effective second language acquisition, has been increasingly focused on more tasked-based learning techniques (Grosjean, 2009). This process entails seeing second language learning as arising from the completion of various tasks that students are expected to perform. An example of this can be seen in goal-directed communicative exercises that work to break down the process of second language acquisition in a series of task, as opposed to viewing it is a set of cognition based exercises predicated on a pre-developed syllabus. While it is true that task based learning techniques is based upon grounded research that illustrates certain inherent advantages within the classroom, it stops short of adopting the cultural differences that are involved in second language acquisition, most of which we now understand is critical to a student to truly be able to grasp and master a foreign language. In conclusion, there are two primary position that must be considered today when discussing linguistic relativity and second language acquisition. As it is a commonly accepted truth that speakers of more than one language must think differently in terms of certain concepts and abstract ideas, the acquisition of a second language should first deal with these different ways of thinking in comparison to the student’s first, or native, language. Once these concepts have been determined, linguists and teachers must work to determine which of the ideas, usually related to culture components, can be taught, and then work to develop ways of effectively teaching them in a classroom type setting. It is important to incorporate a cross-cultural approach to the learning of a second language, as doing so helps learning to understand that differences between the languages in terms of how one thinks. Therefore, the particular methodologies to be incorporated into the teaching of a second language depends to a great extent on the relationship that exists between the learner’s first language and that which he or she is attempting to acquire (Kramsch, 2009). A Japanese student learning Chinese, for example, will need to be taught differently than an English student learning Chinese. This is primarily an issue of cultural distance. The farther away the host culture is from the language group trying to be learned, the more cultural components will need to be a part of the language learning process. Linguistic relativity today is focused upon developing a better understanding of the unique relationship that exists between culture and language. References Byram, M. (2007). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Cook, V.J. (2010). Prolegomena to second language learning. In P. Seedhouse, P., S. Walsh, & C. Jenks (Eds.), Conceptualising language learning. London: Palgrave Macmillan. http://homepage.ntlworld.com/vivian.c/Writings/Papers/Prolegomena.htm Grosjean, F. (2009). Neurolinguists, beware! The bilingual is not two monolinguals in one person. Brain and Language, 36, 3-15. Kramsch, C.J. (2009). Third culture and language education. In V.J. Cook, & L. Wei (Eds.) Contemporary applied linguistics, Volume 1 (pp. 233-254). London: Continuum. Robinson, P. (Ed.) (2011). Cognition and second language instruction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Swan, M. (2009). We do need methods. In V.J. Cook, & L. Wei (Eds.), Contemporary applied linguistics, Volume 1 (pp. 117-136). London: Continuum. Read More