Second Language Acquisition: Is It Teaching or Learning?

By Andrew J. Wykretowicz

Is Second Language Acquisition in your view about teaching a second language or learning necessary skills to communicate? What is your opinion on some of the popular SLA research?

“Second Language Acquisition is a research field that focuses on learners and learning rather than teachers and teaching” (VanPatten & Benati, 2015, p.1).

This opening line in VanPatten and Benati's book nicely summarizes the key mission of Second Language Acquisition (SLA) as a field of study. I think it also expresses the fact that misconceptions and wrong attitudes still widely exist among teachers. Unfortunately, even many scholars in the field of TESOL are focusing more on teaching and its methodology rather than learning. Most textbooks are written from the perspective of the teacher, not the student. This is also demonstrated to some extent in the research covered in chapter 7 of Lightbown and Spada’s book. For example, the authors mention two common myths about language learning: “Languages are learned mainly through imitation” and “Parents usually correct young children when they make grammatical errors.” Many people might agree with those statements, but SLA researchers know the opposite is true. Let’s take, for example, the subject of learning the language through imitation. The theory behind it comes from the behaviorist perspective, which was very popular in the United States in the 1950s. The behaviorist theory was developed in the early 20th century by B.F. Skinner based on the early development of children’s first language. As children practice sounds and chunks of words, they often imitate what they hear around them. But, as Lightbown and Spada explain, “It is difficult to find supportive evidence to back this theory as both first and second language learners produce many novel sentences that they could not have heard before” (p. 201). And while second language learners share some of the developmental stages with first language learners, they quickly move on to more complex steps of language development. The process of imitation usually occurs in the initial stages of SLA. However, imitation is more for production practice than acquisition. Researchers have found that mimicry and L1 influence on L2 acquisition is a complex process and not just imitation. This led to Chomsky’s critique of behaviorism, as he viewed L1 as based on a child’s innate, language-specific module of the mind. This innate knowledge is called Universal Grammar. Universal Grammar (UG) emerged as a reaction to Skinner’s behaviorist view on SLA. Skinner proposed that language is learned through imitation. But Universal Grammar considers environment only as a trigger for language development. UG views language as something unique and different from other cognitive systems. According to UG, humans are born with a universal set of underlying principles that enable children to form hypotheses or rules when they are exposed to a set of finite examples they hear in their environment. UG claims that without the universal set of rules, it would be impossible to learn any language, as the input data is insufficient to allow for language acquisition to occur.

The Ling Space video on Language Acquisition and Universal Grammar presented by Moti Lieberman sufficiently explains the innate theory and UG with a number of tested scientific facts like the stages of development and sound perception discrimination ability for babies. However, what the video is lacking is the implication of how UG fits with other theories, for example, interactionism. Interactionism builds on UG theory and recognizes a greater role of experience and the environment in language development. Its two main proponents are Piaget and Vygotsky. Piaget saw language as a symbol system that could be used to express knowledge acquired through interaction with the physical world. For Vygotsky, thought was essentially internalized speech that emerged in social interaction.

UG may contain a number of valid and essential properties that characterize the process of language development. However, it does not show the whole picture of how humans acquire and develop their language.

When it comes to parents correcting young children when they make grammatical errors, some parents may do just that, but the majority of parents focus on social skills and meaning rather than form. They may tell their child to say “thank you” or “I’m sorry” but will be just as happy when the child says “me sorry” as opposed to “I’m sorry.” Children are good observers, and they can get the grammatical form eventually without any explicit feedback.

Some may say that to be able to acquire a second language successfully, one needs a strong motivation. We often hear: “The best predictor of success in second language acquisition is motivation.” Certainly, motivation is essential to successful SLA, but this concept is still very controversial. First of all, how does one measure motivation, especially in the changing environment of the classroom? A very motivated student on Monday maybe very discouraged or even bored on Tuesday. Definitely the teacher plays an important and active role in knowing their students and motivating them, so it is not a concept specific only to students. What happens when the teacher lacks motivation? Besides, there are other factors that could determine motivation, such as age, interest, background, time, or a good night’s sleep, just to name a few.

“The most powerful rewards are those that are intrinsically motivated within the learner. Because the behavior stems from needs, wants, or desires within oneself, the behavior itself is self-rewarding; therefore, no extremely administered reward is necessary” (Brown, 2006, p. 59).

For some students, just learning the language is a motivator, and the ultimate reward is the skill to effectively use it, as it opens a new world of possibilities. For other students, other factors may affect their motivation, such as learning styles, type of personality (introverted versus extroverted), aptitude, the learner’s beliefs, or even ethnicity. How then do we define motivation when it comes to SLA? I think it has to do with the purpose of learning a second language. Some students learn for personal growth or cultural enrichment, and this process is referred to as integrative motivation. Others learn because of an immediate practical goal—for example, moving to another culture which necessitates requirements to communicate in the new language. This is sometimes referred to as instrumental motivation. Whatever the reason, we as teachers need to do our homework and get to know our students well enough to know their reasons and goals in SLA. As Betsy Rymes explains, “people are drawn together and motivated to communicate through co-membership and shared affinities” (Rymes, p. 5). Teachers can create participatory co-membership around a common goal or theme using “the diverse forms of knowledge that students bring into the classroom” (Rymes, p. 9).

Finally, there is often a question about whether learners’ errors should be corrected as soon as they are made in order to prevent the formation of bad habits. There is some research that points to a negative impact of immediate, direct error correction. Errors can be an indication of the student’s learning process, and error making is a part of that process. The teacher should not directly overcorrect students, as this may discourage them to the point of losing their motivation. As pointed out by Rahimi, “there is a fact that over-correction or poor correction techniques can be demotivating for the learners and, especially when oral performance is focused, may lead to reluctant speakers who may never try out a new language or even to speak at all. Therefore, teachers need to be aware of when to correct learners' errors so that learners' speaking abilities will promote without damaging their confidence” (Rahimi, 2012, p. 45). On the other hand, this does not mean that errors should be ignored; they can be corrected indirectly, for example, through recasts or positive feedback.

Teachers can also make notes of errors during the class and try to incorporate problematic items into future lesson plans or class activities. This creates a more inclusive and accepting classroom atmosphere centered on students. I recognize that there are some SLA studies that support immediate correction; however, most research seems to indicate that it is best to avoid immediate, direct overcorrection.

VanPatten and Benati rightfully say that SLA should be focused on the learner and learning process, not teaching. However, teachers make this process possible for learners, and understanding the process gives them more tools to enable their students to reach their language acquisition goals.

Also, second language acquisition is affected by many factors, and this is what makes this field fascinating and ever evolving. Being part of these processes gives us much-needed experience and helps us understand how to be an effective and motivating teacher.
 

References

Brown, H.D.  (2006). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching (5th ed.). Pearson.

Hummel, K. (2014). Introducing second language acquisition. Perspective and practices. Malden, MA: Wiley.

Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (2013). How languages are learned (4th ed.). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Ling Space video on Language Acquisition and Universal Grammar presented by Moti Lieberman https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLNFGWJOXjA

McLeod, S. A. "Piaget | Cognitive Theory". Simply Psychology. Retrieved 18 September 2012.

Rahimi, A. (2012). Impact of Immediate and Delayed Error Correction on EFL Learners’ Oral Production. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, Vol. 3 (1) January 2012.

Rymes, B. (2014). Communicating Beyond Language. Routledge.

Skinner, B. F. (1958). Verbal Behavior. Acton, Massachusetts: Copley Publishing Group. ISBN 1-58390-021-7.

VanPatten, B., & Benati, A. (2015). Key Terms in Second Language Acquisition. Bloomsbury Publishing.
 
 
Andrew J. Wykretowicz (MA TESOL) is an experienced EFL/ESL instructor. He currently teaches at non-profit organizations in Chicago area. He previously taught ESL in Oakton College, IL, Manhattan College, NY, a private school in CT, Refugee Resettlement Office in VA, and abroad in Canada and Poland. He is also an active member of ITBE and TESOL.