lkmj n´lk
POPULAR IDEAS ABOUT LANGUAGE LEARNING REVISITED: In the Introduction, we presented a number of commonly expressed opinions about how languages are learned. We asked you to indicate how strongly you agreed with these opinions. Now that you have read about some of the theory and research in second language acquisition, take another look at those ideas. Have you changed your mind about the importance of imitation or feedback on errors, or whether starting second language instruction early is the best approach? Do you feel that your views about second language acquisition have been changed or only confirmed by what you’ve read in the preceding chapters?. To conclude this introduction to second language acquisition research, here are some of our own reflections on these popular ideas about language learning.
1 Languages are learned mainly through imitation: It is difficult to find support for the argument that languages are learned mainly through imitation. For one thing, learners produce many novel sentences that they could not have heard before. These sentences are based on their developing understanding of how the language system works. This is evident in children’s sentences such as ‘l’m hiccing up and I can’t stop’, and “It was upside down but I turned it upside right’, and with second language learners who say ‘The cowboy rided into town’, or The man that I spoke to him is angry’. These examples and many others provide evidence that language learners do not simply internalize a great list of imitated and memorized sentences. This does not mean, however, that imitation has no role to play in language learning. Some children imitate a great deal as they acquire their first language, but they do not imitate everything they hear. Instead, they selectively imitate certain words or structures that they are in the process of learning. It is also the case that children who do little overt imitation learn language as quickly and as well as those who imitate more. Thus, imitation may be an individual learning strategy but it is not a universal characteristic of language learners. Like first language learners, second language learners produce many sentences that they could not have heard. Some may find that they benefit from opportunities to imitate samples of the new language, and imitation is clearly important in developing pronunciation and intonation. For some advanced learners who are determined to improve their pronunciation, careful listening and imitation in a language laboratory can be very valuable. But for beginning learners, the slavish imitation and rote memorization that characterized audiolingual language approaches to language teaching can lead to a dead end. Learners need to do more than recite bits of perfectly accurate language. They learn as they make the effort needed to understand and make themselves understood in genuinely meaningful interaction. Otherwise, they may have acquired little more than a collection of sentences, waiting for the moment when those sentences will be useful!.2 Parents usually correct young children when they make grammatical errors:
There is considerable variation in the extent to which parents correct
their children’s speech. The variation is based partly on the children’s age
and partly on the parents’ social, linguistic, and educational background. When
children are very young, parents rarely comment on grammatical errors, although
they may correct lapses in politeness or the choice of a word that doesn’t make
sense. As children reach school age, parents may correct the kinds of non-standard
speech that they hope their children will outgrow, for example, ‘Me and Fred
are going outside now’. Extensive observations of parents and children show that,
as a rule, parents tend to focus on meaning rather than form when they correct
children’s speech. Thus, they may correct an incorrect word choice, an
incorrect statement of the facts, or a rude remark, but they do not often react
to errors that do not interfere with communication. What this tells us is that
children cannot depend on consistent corrective feedback in order to learn the
basic structure (the word order, the grammatical morphemes, the intonation
patterns) of their language. Fortunately, they appear to be able to acquire the
adult form of the language with little or no explicit feedback. The case for
second language learners is more complex. On the one hand, both children and
adults can acquire a great deal of language without any formal instruction or
feedback on error. On the other hand, the evidence suggests that, without
corrective feedback and guidance, second language learners may persist in using
certain ungrammatical forms for years.
3
Highly intelligent people are good language learners: The kind of
intelligence that is measured by IQ tests is often a good predictor of success
in classrooms where the emphasis is on learning about the language (for
example, grammar rules and vocabulary items). People who do well on IQ tests
may do well on other kinds of tests as well. However, in natural language
learning settings and in classrooms where interactive language use is emphasized,
research has shown that learners with a wide variety of intellectual abilities
can be successful language learners. This is especially true if the emphasis is
on oral communication skills rather than metalinguistic knowledge. Most
important, perhaps, is the fact that language learning involves a great variety
of skills and abilities. Students should not be excluded from opportunities to
learn another language on the grounds that they do not have the academic
ability to succeed. In many educational contexts, students from immigrant or
minority groups have no choice about learning a second language. What is
essential is finding ways to engage the different kinds of ability that
students bring to the learning environment.
4 The best predictor of success in second language acquisition is
motivation: Everyone agrees that learners who want to learn tend to do
better than those who don’t. But we must not interpret this too rigidly. Sometimes,
even highly motivated learners encounter great challenges in language learning.
We know, for example, that learners who begin learning a second language as
adults rarely achieve the fluency and accuracy that children do in first
language acquisition. This should not be taken as evidence that adult second
language learners are not motivated to learn. It may be a reflection of changes
that come with age or of other individual differences such as language learning
aptitude or how the instruction interacts with individual learners’ styles and
preferences for learning. Teachers have no influence over learners’ intrinsic
motivation for learning a second language. Students come to classrooms from
different backgrounds and life experiences, all of which have contributed to
their motivation to learn and attitudes toward the target language and the
community with which it is associated. The principal way that teachers can
influence learners’ motivation is by making the classroom a supportive
environment in which students are stimulated, engaged in activities that are
appropriate to their age, interests, and cultural backgrounds, and, most
importantly, where students can experience success. This in turn can contribute
to positive motivation, leading to still greater success.
5 The earlier a second language is
introduced in school programmes, the greater the likelihood of success in
learning: The decision about when to introduce second or foreign language
instruction must depend on the objectives of the language programme in the
particular social context of the school. When the objective is native-like
performance in the second language, then it may be desirable to begin exposure
to the language as early as possible. The research evidence is fairly strong
that those who begin second language learning at an early age are most likely
to eventually be indistinguishable from native speakers. However, even in cases
where native-like proficiency is targeted, it is important to recognize certain
disadvantages of an early start for second language learning. When an early
start means that children have little opportunity to continue to develop their
first language, the resulting subtractive bilingualism may have lasting
negative consequences. For children from minority-language backgrounds,
programmes promoting the development of the first language both at home and at
school may be more important for long-term success in the second language than
an early start in the second language itself. Research shows that a good
foundation in the child’s first language, including the development of literacy,
is a sound base to build on. Children who can begin their schooling in a
language they already know will have more self-confidence, will be able to
learn more effectively in the early school years, and will not lose valuable
time in a period of limbo during which they struggle just to understand what is
happening in the classroom. For many children, there is no opportunity to have
their early schooling in their first language. They are members of small
minority groups where it is not practical for schools to offer them an
educational programme in their first language, or they live in jurisdictions
where legislation has mandated a single language of education for all children,
regardless of their background. For these children, it is crucial to have sensitive
educators who respect the children’s difficulty, who encourage parents to
maintain the home language, and who understand that second language learning
takes time and effort. For foreign language instruction or for second language
instruction where the level of proficiency that is targeted is not native-like
performance by all students, the situation is quite different. When the goal of
the educational programme is basic communicative skill for all students, and
where there is a strong commitment to maintaining and developing the child’s
first language, it can be more efficient to begin second language teaching
later. Older children (for example, ten-year olds) are able to catch up quickly
to those who began earlier (for example, at six- or seven-years old) in
programmes offering only a few hours a week of instruction. This is especially
true if the foreign language course includes a period of more intensive
exposure to the new language. All school programmes should be based on
realistic estimates of how long it takes to learn a second language. One or two
hours a week-even for seven or eight years-will not produce advanced second
language speakers. This ‘drip-feed’ approach often leads to frustration as
learners feel that they have been studying ‘for years’ without making much
progress. Sadly, they are sometimes right about this.