This chapter looks at two main theoretical aspects pertaining to language acquisition: that of the Empiricists and the Rationalists. Two interesting views are: Skinner (Empiricist) a proponent of S-R psychology, supports the idea that language in humans is acquired through a conditioning process; where Chomsky (Mentalist) believes that every human by nature has a universal grammar, and that all humans have the inherent capacity to acquire a language. Through teaching, or your own learning experience, are you able to identify with either of these different approaches, and why?
In your experience with study abroad, which theoretical framework (if any) did you find most pertinent to your teaching and learning while in a foreign country? What factors outside of the classroom do you believe assist and/or impede with the acquisition of a second language? Give examples.
I would say that I identify more with the view proposed by Skinner. A conditioning process or what we go through in a class room setting is closest to what I have seen work. I do not agree that every human has universal grammar programmed in them from birth. I feel that grammar is learnt not naturally there. I have seen students who speak a language or two struggle with grammar similar to the one their native language uses. This is something I feel shows that grammar has to be taught. Spanish and Portuguese have similar grammar structures but I feel that without schooling in the grammar of both languages it would not be possible to speak the languages well.
ReplyDeleteI found that comprehensible input was more helpful while teaching and learning abroad. Although I spoke spanish well going into this study abroad experience I found that in my classes I needed to understand the general message of what was being talked about in order to know what was being said. Outside of the classroom I feel having conversations with locals was the most helpful. This not only helped lower anxiety about speaking the language but allowed me to get used to the accent of Ticos. Grocery shopping, as strange as it sounds, was helpful. Seeing items that I knew in english with a label in spanish helped make connection in my brain and expanded my spanish vocabulary.
I would like to question your point of view on Skinner's theory, you believe that language is a series of questions with a calculated set of answers?
DeleteI feel like conditioning is a process which believes that humans and language are easily reduced to a predictable set of phrases, so what would you say to counter that statement?
Tim,
DeleteI believe that the way I was taught in a classroom did help my language skills grow. However, I feel that learning a language is not a one size fits all situation. Everyone learns differently so the way that helped me would not help everyone. I also feel that without my study abroad experience and spending time with native language speakers my language skills would not be anywhere near where they are today so I do see value in both settings. My view on which way works better depends on the students. Some people may like the structure of a classroom setting and so might respond better to something close to Skinners view.
Kelly,
DeleteI agree with your notion that Skinner's theoretical framework applies more to classroom experiences when studying a language. With regard to what you say about Chomsky's framework, I agree in part that acquiring a language does not happen as naturally for some as it does for others, and that it is not "one size fits all", especially when it comes to learning complex grammars, but I would at least say, however, that I believe every individual has the internal system in place to acquire a language (as we see everyone acquire a native language through their critical years). In regards to applying Chomsky's universal grammar theory to the acquisition of a second language (which the book does mention), even though the universal grammar theory applies to L1, I think an argument can be made for seeing this same type of learning and acquisition apply to L2, in part that humans have that internal system already laid within their brains to acquire a language, and a particular learning process to apply to that acquisition. I think that this notion can be challenged though when looking at the valid point you made; that language learning isn't always natural for everyone, and people experience difficulties in the process all too often. This was something I had to address in my Spanish class last year as I saw some of my students learning very well and almost effortlessly, where others encountered serious difficulties despite how much they studied. With that said, I have come to believe that learning a language, especially proper grammar, is more mechanical and requires tremendous amounts of practice and feedback.
In regards to your study abroad, I like and agree with your assertion that Krashen's "input hypothesis" owed a lot of credit to your successful learning in a foreign language setting. It is the ideal environment where we see the idea of i+1 take place in our input and learning. I too am able to lend much of my learning experience abroad to this same theory.
There are ideas from both the Empiricist and Rationalist extremes that resonate with me as well as critiques and weaknesses of theories from the two sides that are important to understand too. Through my own learning experience, I could identify with Skinner’s approach to second language learning. The key principles of Behaviorist theory could be represented on a small scale by operant conditioning used in Spanish courses. On a quiz related to verb conjugations, for example, a student will often be marked incorrectly for a verb that isn’t conjugated according to the standards of the teacher. This example would illustrate the “sophisticated response system” developed through operant conditioning and described by Behaviorist theorists because certain patterns of language are reinforced (the “correct” verb conjunctions are being reinforced with higher grades) while the “incorrect” verb conjugations are not rewarded.
ReplyDeleteHowever, there is evidence to back up Chomsky’s universal grammar approach. I could identify with this Rationalist viewpoint by citing the example of human children learning language in a short period of time and with what Chomsky refers to as “limited input.” Nevertheless, I would question whether or not Chomsky’s argument can be applied to adult language learning and/or second language acquisition since other studies lend credit to the notion that learning a language after a so-called “critical period” during childhood is not as easily accomplished.
While I was abroad, I found that interacting with native speakers while completing daily activities was influential on my language learning in two foreign countries and this observation can be supported by Empiricist theories. On the other hand, I have to keep in mind that I began the trips with a concept of language skills already in my head and that could lend itself more to Rationalist theories. Outside of the classroom, interaction with native speakers undoubtedly assists with the acquisition of a second language and individual learning factors like aptitude or motivation (discussed at the end of the chapter) may either assist or impede language acquisition.
Overall, Empiricist and Rationalist theories have certain components that should be applied in language classrooms. In my opinion, humans are innately wired to acquire language (and most do so through the biological process of maturation) but language learning must also be facilitated by outside stimuli. It is through the combined efforts of nature and nature, which is by no means a straightforward formula, that adults learn a language most successfully.
Candace,
DeleteWould it be too hard to believe that proper verb conjugation also would not be rewarded in conversation with a native? When verbs are conjugated properly there is no comprehension lost, and if one does not properly conjugate confusion or embarrassment will ensue, or even worse... a native will understand the idea being expressed and ignore the blatant error and move on as if there was nothing incorrectly stated. So what is worse, a conditioned environment for precise and proper language or incorrect, improper native spoken proficiency?
Tim
Tim & Candace,
DeleteTim I see your point but this also assumes that the native speaker does not care about your language ability, use, and education. After working closely with a multitude of native speakers in the international community in Durham and the surrounding areas, I disagree that a response would be anything less than educational and valuable as a learning speaker. It is also assumed that the native speaker is right, which might not always be the case. Speaking a native language natively doesn't mean you are a hundred percent correct all the time. Having correct proper language defined through high-stress classroom environments may make you sound educated, but that doesn't make it applicable language. If you don't have the skills to adapt your vocabulary, switch social pronouns adeptly and understand social nuances through slang, colloquialisms and so forth from working with a native speaker, then your performance alone will not be at the level it should be, even if the speaker makes a lot of mistakes. Just because you were drilled in the classroom on every verb and verb-form there is to know, doesn't mean that your ability to synthesize and apply it to all of its possible and plausible contexts will also be as adept as your theoretical knowledge!
Candace,
DeleteYou make a lot of great points in your post. After teaching 401 & 402 Spanish and using much of Skinner's theories, I found that in certain situations, perhaps it may not be the best one. Using the example you provided in your post about correcting students' verb conjugations on an exam.... I found this method not to be useful at all. No matter how many times a student would get verb conjugations incorrect on assessments and I would correct them, they never corrected without a more tailored approach. After taking Lina's Second Language Acquisition class last semester, I arrived at the understanding that students almost never corrected mistakes from their exams because there was no "uptake" done on the students' part. Meaning that they never repeated the correct answer in context and were therefore unable to fully comprehend why it is "escribí" instead of "escribó", for example.
Regarding your immersion experience, I do understand your reason of why it can be difficult to connect Chomsky's universal language theory to L2 acquisition. In my experience, I think that Chomsky's theory is quite applicable because even the first time I went abroad and had my very first encounter in a social setting in a Spanish speaking country, I had the ground work already laid out in my brain to start acquiring and building on my Spanish skills. I think I had the framework already set in place for two reasons: 1) I had already acquired a language once in my life, and I think subconsciously I was aware of a certain skill set that I would be able to use to apply to Spanish acquisition, and 2) I already had an intermediate foundation of Spanish, so I was able to progress from that. I think with the second point, Krashen's theory is more applicable. Interestingly enough however, I can remember while living in Spain, long before I ever did any advanced grammar studies and had a mastery of concepts such as subjunctive vs. indicative, preterite vs. imperfect, object pronouns, se, etc.; that I was able to understand and produce several sentences and phrases in Spanish using the subjunctive, or imperfect or whatever grammatical aspect, however, I lacked the full understanding of why I was using that particular aspect, which I now possess. So I was able to produce speech using advanced aspects, knowing I had to use that particular aspect always in that type of situation, but I lacked full grammatical understanding of why it was being used. I think this is where Chomsky's theory is applicable because when toddlers are acquiring their L1, they are using several different aspects with a lack of understanding, however, they just know that that type of sentence has to be said a certain way, and cannot be said another way. I can connect this particular example with my own immersion experience.
There are certain aspects from Skinner’s Empiricist theory as well as some aspects from Chomsky’s Mentalist theory which make sense however I would not necessarily say that I agree completely with one or the other. Skinner’s theory supports the idea that humans are conditioned to learn a new language and although there is a process through which humans learn a new language I disagree that the entire language learning process is a conditioning procedure. Languages are not like cookie cutters, you cannot take a blank sheet of cookie and simply cut form it to fit the mold and voila you magically can speak another langue. NO, learning a language, much like Chomsky’s point of view where humans have a natural universal grammar and an inherit ability to acquire language makes more sense to me in this case. Chomsky state that humans can acquire a language through natural occurrences I would argue these scenarios would be real life immersion, living the language and the culture and learning through listening, comprehending and then repeating. This approach aligns more appropriately with my new favorite theory the comprehensible input theory. When humans are put into a scenario where they can understand a language regardless of which one it may be, this idea of universal grammar might just make sense and explain why humans can not speak a language at all but follow along learning it quite rapidly.
ReplyDeleteWhile studying abroad I can personally relate to Chomsky’s theory more closely because when we would go out to a bar we were put into an environment not only where it was important to speak the language but also we had help all around if we could not follow along. This immersion experience that was encountered was the best way for me to improve my fluency, vocabulary and oral comprehension. I learned a whole lot more language at a bar than I did in the classroom while abroad. I was in a low anxiety environment and bit by bit I started to become more and more confident in my abilities to hold my own and not be embarrassed about my speaking abilities. A factor which would impede language learning outside of the classroom would be something that comes from within, confidence. If you do not believe in yourself or in your abilities you will not use the language and if you don’t use it you will lose it when it comes to languages. Speaking or using the language at all outside of class in daily activities will increase your language learning to the nth degree.
Tim,
DeleteI think your comparison of language and cookie cutters accurately describes the reality of “behaviorism” theory and operant conditioning as the only factors acting on language acquisition and learning. In other words, I agree with your argument that “behaviorism” and operant conditioning cannot be the sole factors in language learning (at least not without Chomsky’s theory too).
What you’ve said about confidence and speaking languages is similar to Krashen’s “affective filter hypothesis.” According to you, as well as Krashen, comprehensible input will have an effect in optimal conditions. This means that language learners must be motivated, have self-confidence, and have low anxiety. One of the biggest challenges to teaching a language is, in my opinion, motivating students and making them feel comfortable enough to use their language skills so that they, as you said, get the most benefit from language learning inside and outside of the classroom.
Candace,
DeleteI agree with almost all of your commentary on approaching teaching the students themselves. However I feel that expecting students to be motivated, expected of having self-confidence, and not having anxiety issues, is something truly impossible. The language classroom would be a very different place if this statement were true, but unfortunately those students who are not interested, who lack self confidence, who are stressed out people, exist in boat loads. So I agree with you that we need to motivate students to try, to attempt, and speak up, but how? Is it plausible to pull some people out of their shells and show them what language can offer them?
Tim,
DeleteI really enjoyed your post. I identify with so many things you discussed regarding the different ways that Skinner's and Chomsky's theories apply to language acquisition. I also agree with you, in that, I think that the learning experience is a mixed bag, and the idea that only one theory in particular is at play when it comes to acquiring and learning a language doesn't work.
Your study abroad experience is all too similar to my own. Like you, I strongly believe that Chomsky's theory of universal language is applicable due to the fact that I already had the system in place to acquire and learn a language, but when it came to progressing in this environment, I think that Krashen's theory starts to work it's way in to how we learn and improve.
Morgan, in regards to your comment.... I would not say, at least in my own teaching experience, that teachers expect their students to be motivated, full of self-confidence, with no anxiety. At the beginning of my 401 class last fall, I addressed these specific topics with my students right from the start. I communicated to my class that I was sure there were some of them that didn't want to be sitting in a Spanish class, and that they were only there to fulfill a requirement. About 80% of my class felt that way. What I did once realizing that was I talked about how important and advantageous knowing a language, especially Spanish, could be to them in their careers some day. I found ways to inspire motivation in several of my students because I found a way to apply learning it to benefitting them in their future careers. I also explained to them that learning and acquiring a language is no easy task, and that learning comes with a lot of mistakes, uncomfortable feedback (at times), and feeling awkward or embarrassed when providing an incorrect answer; but at the same time, it is a lot of fun, and that they would feel incredible self-accomplishment throughout their progression, as long as they worked hard and kept up with assignments and studying. It was good that I touched on this from the start because while keeping my hopes for the class high, I was able to adjust my expectations and center them around the students' learning.
In looking at the two theories at length, I am hard pressed to say either holds more insight or truth than the other. Linguistically speaking, both identify a natural process undergone by humans as they develop from birth. The difference is that Chomsky's view of this fundamental framework that is inherent in all young humans simply allows for the idea of learning natively to exist, whereas Skinner explains a process of perfecting 1st and multiple language acquisition. The concept of the grammar of a child's mind, even only being an abstract representation, explains their ability to learn language(s) naturally from observation, from trying, listening, and from experiencing a language. There IS conditioning as noted by Skinner, but there is the classic example of how does a human child come up with verb forms such as "Goed" or "Flied" when adults know it is Went and Flew? This, to me points out that there is already a framework type of learning that all children learning their native language possess, considering what educated adult would ever say I "goed" to the store? And so therefore it could not have been the product of language conditioning. There is something, as Chomsky suggests, that children innately hold as language learners, that allows them to pick up patterns faster than we ever could as an adult acquiring our second or third languages. How else could a person learn such nuances and rules without years of study? How many 4, 5, and 6 year old's do we see attending 632 Advanced Conversation and Comp. classes to be better at their own language?
ReplyDeleteThat being said, it is the idea of situational conditioning suggested by Skinner that explains our ability, as humans to learn other languages, and perfect our own. This mental "grammar" concept of Chomsky does not explain how a human who has never been exposed to human language after 12 or so years (from birth no human contact), cannot fathom human language in the slightest. Under his theory, Chomsky's ideas would say that he could have picked it up, yet when in the few cases that this has happened were studied, the result was almost no progress nor ability to innately pickup a human language. This points out, to me anyways, that both of these theories have a time frame in which one supersedes the other. Chomsky's, from birth to young adolescence, ultimately decides the course of a native speaker and decides how a human being adopts language from synthesizing input and setting it to this natural process tree of language that we all were born with, and Skinner's more readily reflects on the ability of a young adult and older to both perfect the native human language as well as acquire others. Without either, human language wouldn't be possible in the slightest. If we have no organized box or system to adopt anything in the first place, how can we change it and adapt it through conditioning? But if there is no conditioning to modify, to correct, and to evolve the language, our grammar becomes inconsistent with what is known, and it creates a barrier from our own species and our own native tongue.
In terms of how this affects my teaching, I am less interested in the work of Chomsky, only in that I am looking towards working with students past where his ideas effect their language development. Classroom-setting style teaching IS conditioning on a formal level. It is our job to implant and correct, rather than to assume they will already KNOW the grammar and just correct them on it. There is no framework present for us, as teachers, to build off of unless a student grew up in a bilingual household. We start from the ground up and help them construct their system from scratch. So repetition and advanced vocab constantly from day one won't necessarily form a solid base, but rather I intend to give them the understanding they lack of the system as a whole, not just a group of words to associate with their native language meanings.
Morgan,
DeleteI was able to make a connection with the middle section of your post about Chomsky’s Universal Grammar approach since I’ve reviewed case studies relating to language acquisition and “feral children” in other courses. The case of Genie, for example, is horrific but significant to the debates concerning language acquisition and learning. I’ve included a short YouTube clip from the NOVA documentary on Genie’s situation for those who might not be familiar with her story.
Here is the link to the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmTEJat9b0k.
For Genie, the abuse and isolation she suffered resulted in her missing the “critical period” of language acquisition which, in a way, supports “behaviorism” over Chomsky’s theory of Universal Grammar. Even if Genie, as a human, was innately wired to learn language, she was unable to do so in the long run without social interaction. Sadly, even after Genie was removed from her abusive home life, she was never able to develop language skills beyond the knowledge of vocabulary words.
Therefore, the conclusions of linguistic studies about Genie match up with what you’re saying about a combination of Empiricist and Rationalist theories accurately describing language acquisition. Genie had the capacity to learn language when she was a child (Chomsky) but, since she was not exposed to social interaction, her language could not develop (“behaviorism”). Later in life and due to her interaction with adults, Genie was able to learn vocabulary, but she was never able to fully access her innate language abilities. Both Empiricist and Rationalist theories are at play.
Morgan,
DeleteYou and a few others bring up the point of bilingual people learning another language later in life. My question to you and the rest of the group would be how do you feel that this affects their ability to learn a language after the period of time as children that many feel is ideal for language learning? Does learning two or more languages at the same time mean they can learn other languages more rapidly as adults?
Kelly,
DeleteFrom what I understand from I've seen in some friends and observations, children who group up bilingually are just as diverse in their language abilities as one-language household children. A lot of times there are cases where there is lexicon switching in bilingual and toddlers and young kids, who know words and understand what is being said to them by both types of speakers, but do not categorize words into two separate bins of vocab. They understand how to use the words and they see they are formed differently in sentences. Yet, they do not see the two languages as two separate entities. So they may know that the fruit mom is holding out to them (say an orange) has a name, say, naranja, but they may not have the rest of the vocabulary in Spanish to say that Quiero esa naranja, or Es una naranja. At that point, there is legitimate Spanglish, and a child can say something like Mama, I want naranja! They don't see it as wrong, and it isn't really, it is just that their grammar is functioning, and they're filling in the gaps of one language with the pieces of the other. In saying this it can be difficult for bilingual speakers to learn in a standard academic environment, but at the same time the benefits of learning multiple languages at a young age are also apparent with many people. It's a real toss up and there's not always a clear answer.
As for their adult lives, that is more up in the air. I feel that if someone is a language person, they are a language person, and they can't be made to learn more rapidly or more effectively just in how they raised. If someone has the drive or the interest, that determines their ability to learn language at the basest level.
In terms of both theories of second language acquisition, I can not find one that I identify myself more than the other. Both have merits and ideas that I can agree with it, but some of there core ideas I can not find to be in line with my own thoughts. Such as in Skinner's theory that a child has no "innate pre-programming" for learning a language at birth. I believe that children are sponges that absorb so much especially in terms of language acquisition, whether it being first or second language. In regards to Chomsky's theory and how it states that there is a universal grammar core is something that I find hard to relate with. In terms of grammar I think that each language has its own unique grammatical rules and that part of learning a language is to become acquainted with a new grammar and understanding how to emulate its structure in practice. We are not programmed to have a sense of grammar, but acquire it through the first stages of infancy from exposure to speech.
ReplyDeleteWhile studying abroad in Japan I think that I would lean more towards Skinner's theory in terms of how I learned and studied the Japanese language. When I was communicating in the language with native speakers I always had to pay attention to their facial expressions to notice if they understood what I was trying to say. It was easy to see if they understood me because they would either smile and continue the conversation by responding in Japanese, or they would only smile and not say anything. This behavior made me focus on my pronunciation and clarity of my speech.
While I learned many new vocabulary terms and new grammatical rules in Japanese in the classroom, the most influence in my Japanese was when I was going out and interacting with other Japanese native speakers that had little to no English background. It forced me to train my sense of hearing, due to the normal level of a native speakers speech is very low and fast, while also allowing me to learn more colloquial terms and expressions that are lost in the text books that we studied. I found my ability to communicate was much stronger when I was able to use more common terms and not sound as if I were using a textbook to open conversations. Also due to the Japanese language having three writing styles I learned many new words by just walking around and getting lost in train stations, while trying to read the directional maps and the signs on the buildings.
One thing that impeded me when I was abroad was that I had to much exposure to my own native language of English. To me it hindered my ability to focus on learning another language because it was difficult to constantly put yourself in the slightly uncomfortable position of not being able to communicate with another person. But to me that stems more of a personal situation, or preference. We all learn in our way, at our own pace.
Kevin,
DeleteI second your point that both theories of second language acquisition have positive and negative aspects. I also found your connection to Skinner’s S-R theory to be intriguing because I hadn’t thought of studying abroad in terms of Empiricist theories. For example, you talked about the responses of native speakers and how those responses affected your use of Japanese. If the native speaker(s) responded positively (with a smile and continued conversation), then you would interpret this as a reward to what you’ve communicated to them. If, as you said, they did not continue the conversation, I would guess that you’d be forced to find a different way to convey your message and that you’d be less likely to speak however you had spoken before. This scenario describes the “sophisticated response system” acquired through operant conditioning that constitutes the foundation of “behaviorism” and one theory about how humans learn languages.
Kevin,
DeleteI agree with your view that both theories do present points with which I agree. I feel that children have a way to understand the things they are hearing until they eventually make sense but I do not agree that it is a understanding of grammar from the beginning. I agree with you that this is developed over time.
I also completely agree that the way native speakers react to your use of the language , in your case Japanese, does impact your use of the language in the future. I found that being around English speaks also made it harder to focus on my use of Spanish while studying abroad. The time I spent around solely Spanish speakers was when my spanish grew the most. This figure it out now or die trying response pushed me to pay more attention to what I was hearing and learning. I feel that for someone to truly grasp a new language they have to be put in this tough position even though it may feel uncomfortable and awkward.
Kevin,
DeleteI enjoyed reading your post and agree with many of the points you have addressed. Also, you have made me rethink my own understanding of how Chomsky's theory of universal grammar can apply to L2 acquisition and learning through the telling of your own experience. I agree that, as good as these theories look in a book, they are not applicable across the board to everyone's learning experiences. And when it comes to study abroad, especially through the description of your own experience, more often than not that is the "wild card" learning experience because no two people have the same experience. I like how you introduced the aspect of language pragmatics in your immersion experience because I feel it is not addressed enough in study abroad. It was interesting how you mentioned that you had to pay attention to native speakers' visual queues in order to determine if what you were saying was correct. Even though the Spanish use body language a lot, they have not fostered physical reactions to something that someone says with such a tremendous emphasis put on their body language. You have clearly acquired a completely different language (very different from latin based languages) in an interesting and complex social setting. I think because of that experience, you have every right to question some of the theories we have learned about, because perhaps some of them are hard to identify with depending on the language your learning and the type of social aspects that surround your experience.
I believe that both of these theoretical frameworks have a place in the process of acquiring a language. However, in my experience, I identify more with the approach that Chomsky proposes. When looking at each of these frameworks, I believe that Skinner's S-R theory is more pertinent to classroom instruction, whereas Chomsky's theory applies to real life scenarios and natural situations. When looking at the way instructors manage their classes, certain rewards or positive reinforcement is provided when correct answers are given. I believe this example is a sufficient one to argue in favor of Skinner's theoretical framework in the classroom environment. Chomsky's framework is more common, I believe, outside of the classroom, in an immersion setting.
ReplyDeleteMy experience studying abroad has shown me more of a Chomsky framework than any other. The idea that every human has a universal grammar, and has the ability to acquire a language was something I encountered while studying in Spain. In my own experience, I saw that the more exposure I had with society and new people speaking Spanish, the better and quicker my language skills improved. This is a good example of having the capacity to acquire a language in a natural setting, something Chomsky touches on when describing his framework. There were other instances as well where i saw people with almost no classroom foundation of Spanish acquire the language very well just through social interactions. I believe the power of social exposure in an immersion setting is a strong proponent that supports Chomsky's theory very well.
I believe that the more opportunities people make for themselves to interact with society is one of the best things that can assist and speed up the acquisition of a second language. Learning in the United States can only benefit a student so much. Without an immersion experience, students will only progress so much without the immersion experience. The biggest culprit that impedes the ability to acquire a language, in my experience, is too much exposure to your native language while in a foreign country. i noticed that when lived in Spain and had no ties to an American study abroad program, I learned at a very quick rate because I minimized my encounters with Americans and had mostly Spanish friends. When I studied in Spain with the UNH program, I noticed the opposite effect take place, where I was learning, but not at a superior rate. I believe this was due to my frequent exposure of the English language.
Robert,
DeleteWhat you’ve said about Skinner’s S-R theory being more relevant to classroom instruction while Chomsky’s theory of language acquisition is pertinent to immersion settings is an interesting way to define the use of both theories in practice. I would agree with the notion that study abroad experiences may lend credit to Chomsky’s argument but I would also say that they relate to other Rationalist theories including Krashen’s Monitor Theory. It seems to me that Krashen’s “input hypothesis” might be applicable when nonnative speakers interact with native speakers. It reminds me of the video of Stephen Krashen explaining his theory that’s posted on the page with the Chapter 2 reflection questions. As Krashen describes, all humans learn language through “comprehensible input” which would suggest that nonnative speakers abroad learn language from native speakers and surroundings by relying on context and extralinguistic cues.
Krashen’s theory could also support what you’ve said about too much exposure to one’s native language in a foreign country. I imagine that Krashen would agree that somebody attempting to learn another language could never progress very far with the second language if they are overly-dependent on their native language and are, therefore, not exposed to comprehensible input.
So Robert,
DeleteThe question that I have for you is that although I completely agree that Chomsky's theory seems to be more beneficial for language learning, but how does one create an environment in the classroom which is conducive to increasing students learning?
But what I am interested in hearing is that you believe that your own native tongue could impede your language learning process... How so? could you explain more as to how this would be?
Tim
Robert,
DeleteI agree with Tim's inquiry about this situation, and he brings up a good point, that should be addressed. In saying of that, do you think that your ability to switch between multiple languages is affected by your use of both your native tongue and learned language in a setting like you described? Would you still suggest going on the Granada program if there was that much of a lull in your learning because of the students you went with? And as a note, to get a better picture, how drastically different was your level of learning between the Mixed Native Language situation and the only foreign language situation?
Hi Tim, so I noticed that I was not perhaps clear enough in my blog post. What I meant to communicate was that I see how both Chomsky's theory and that of Skinner apply to the acquisition of a second language (Skinner's more so in the classroom, and Chomsky's more so in an immersion environment), but I stated that I identify more with Chomsky's theory because I found this particular framework apply better to my learning and acquisition of Spanish. I lived in Spain for two and a half years, and I found grammar classes that I was taking over in Spain to be somewhat useless. During my two and a half years spent in Spain, I learned and progressed more in that time than I have during the rest of my life studying Spanish. Hopefully this adequately explains why I identify with this theory more so; it was the most successful for me. I found that when I was outside of the classroom and interacting with society (buying groceries, getting keys made, going to the post office, going to the doctor's, spending time with Spanish friends, speaking with my landlord, etc.), I learned more from these experiences than I did from classroom instruction. I will say, however, that classroom instruction before going to Spain was absolutely essential because it provided me with an incredible foundation that allowed me to learn at the tremendous rate that I did. Chomsky's theory wasn't really pertinent to classroom learning, in my experience, Skinner's was more relevant. However, with that said, I find Chomsky's theory more beneficial in my own learning experience due to the fact that my Spanish progressed at an exponential rate following that particular framework.
DeleteTim, this is to answer your second point, as well as you Morgan... When I lived overseas, I went three different times. The first time I went with my previous university and did a month abroad, on a program sponsored by my old school (Saint Anselm College). There were 15 of us from that school that went on the program, and we lived in Granada. The second time I went to Spain, I lived there for two years, and left my university and packed my bags and moved to Granada on my own. I went with no U.S. university and no program, and therefore had no connection with any American students. When I arrived in Granada, I lived with Spanish students from the Universidad de Granada. I spent a year living in Granada, and a year living in Salamanca. The third time I went to Spain, I went for six months on the UNH Granada program, and about 20 students from UNH went on this trip. Out of all of my experiences living in Spain, the second time I went was by far the most successful in terms of learning. Disregarding time spent on each trip, I found the second time I lived in Spain to be the best because my learning and acquisition of Spanish was completely and utterly unimpeded. Due to the fact I had almost no exposure to Americans while over there, and pretty much speaking Spanish all day everyday, a completely profound process started to take shape. As soon as two months after arriving, I began dreaming in Spanish very frequently, and I even started thinking and speaking to myself in Spanish. I discovered that the less exposed I was to my native language, my Spanish had more room to grow, and do so at an uninterrupted rate because I was not having to switch between English and Spanish on a regular basis. So if you ask if my learning differed from the time I went with programs with Americans students to the time I moved to Spain alone, then I would say most definitely yes.
It seems that we all are all extracting somewhat of the same consensus, that being: there is not one theory that works solely better than another in all aspects of language acquisition. I think that when you combine the complexity with the mystery of language, there really is no way to decipher one of these theories being more prominent or important than the other. For me, a main outlet for fairly differentiating between the two different theories is when we look at what age the person was learning the language at. I do believe that humans possess and innate capacity for learning a language when they are new to the world. I also think talking about people who are new to the world is more important than talking about people who start learning a second language when they are 20 or even 9 or 10. When Chomsky proposes the act of children producing different formations of words and grammatical structures (that are incorrect) it resonates with the idea that there is an innate ability and drive to exercising a language, we have all seen this probably. I have only seen it in the English language but I am sure it happens in all languages. From personal experience, my aunt studied french in college and now lives in Grenoble, France and of course is completely bilingual, she spoke french and english to her children growing up and now they are both able to go off and on between french and english like the switch of a light, I think this holds more to the innate capacity of Chomsky than the conditioning theory of Skinner. However, once we get older and try to learn a language it is much more difficult to hit that light switch when we please. This understanding speaks more towards the conditioning aspect that skinner proposes because we are positively reinforced by our professors or peers or whoever when we do something grammatically correct and therefore we continue to condition ourselves like that. This idea that as we grow older and more conditioned, or just more involved in the language we have learned, the innate capacity essentially decreases if not diminishes completely-it is not as easy to learn a language as it was the first time where we potentially had that inherent ability- is somewhat of a testament to the argument that Beedham proposes in defense of the empiricist point of view which says that the argument of universal grammar might as well be a “circularity of argumentation.
ReplyDeletePersonally, since I began learning a language after my ‘sponge-like’ abilities had subsided a bit, I think that I would have to split it down the middle in regards to selecting a framework of most pertinence because I saw sides of both theories. Like Robert said, when you are exposed and immersed to native speakers on a day to day basis it seems that you are able to almost subconsciously assimilate different grammatical structures or sounds that you obviously weren’t able to put together before. On the other hand however, there is definitely a sense of positive reinforcement (like kevin said): when you do something correct and you are able to see that the native speaker understands you, it makes you hold onto that feeling of positive reward and of course you will continue to do what you have just done.
Max,
DeleteI can personally identify with your aunt being that in having the opportunity to live abroad in France is simply a more effective method to learn language, supporting Chomsky's theory. You bring up an interesting point in that what age a human begins to study could also be a great factor. I would be interested to find out if there is an optimal age to learn a second language. This innate ability that people speak of is something that people need to harness yet it does not seem that many, if any are able to fully do that.
So if we all seem to pick up on similar trends in the theories studied... how can we utilize the theories in tandem to create the optimal environment for learning?
Max,
DeleteI agree with your idea that children hold an innate capacity for exercising a language, I personally was not able to communicate with my grandparents when I was little because I could not speak Spanish, I began to practice more and more when I first met them and copied everything they said and would pay attention to their conversations. Now I am able to understand Spanish on a native level and have since began studying others languages using the same things that helped me improve my Spanish.