Teach English in BAlAgA'ergAole Zhen - Xilinguole Meng — Xilin Gol

Language acquisition is a muddy topic to research. The differences between the L1 and L2 acquisition are, as most everyone agrees, substantial. We can see this in the simple fact that adult language learners never completely get rid of their accent, whereas children can seamlessly learn more than one language at a ability comparable a native language. There is no concise diagnosis why this huge gap in the proficiency of pre- and post-puberty second language learners exists. Various studies and theories exist, which partially contradict each other. Nevertheless there is probably no more vital question when considering how one should go about teaching adult and child students foreign languages. An understanding of the factors that differentiate L1 and L2 language acquisition, is the foundation on which teaching methods should be based. In the following analysis, the similarities and differences of L1 and L2 language will be discussed, highlighting relevant and controversial academic theories. The relevant similarities and differences are then directly applied to ESL teaching methodology. Similarities L1 and L2 Acquisition The general stages of L1 and L2 acquisition are, surprising as it may be, are comparable. Based on the characterization for Rod Ellis, there exists three stages of L1 development: the silent period, formulaic speech, and structural and semantic simplification.1 Analyzing the behavior of beginning L2 students, it becomes evident that there is a natural silent phase for all students that has a similar function to the silent phase of babies. Whereas most ESL teachers pressure their students to speak as much as possible as soon as possible, research on the importance of a silent phase in L1 acquisition raises questions about its role in L2 acquisition. For instance, Stephen Krashen suggested that allowing a silent phase may boost the learner’s auditory skills, thus helping cross a critical threshold of understanding free speech more quickly. The second stage of acquisition; formulaic speech, entails the memorization of language blocks and phrases that can be used as a muster in which the student only has to “fill in” the blanks.2 This has been found to be a natural stage of L1 development. As such, it seems beneficial to focus more on these kind of phrase elicitation activities with elementary and intermediate students, rather than prematurely forcing them into the creative phase of structural and semantic simplification. It is widely recognized that quality and quantity of language input are defining factors in the student’s ability to create output in the target language. Stephan Krashen theorizes that the input should be adapted in accordance to the learner’s language level, but always be just slightly above the learners capabilities.3 The challenging aspect of chasing the incomprehensible new formations, as long as as they are not in an overwhelming amount, has a positive effect on the learner’s language acquisition. This process is mirrored quite naturally in L1 acquisition, seeing as adults modify their speech for the child’s understanding. An interactionalist approach to language acquisition states that interaction with people is a condition of successful language acquisition. Other forms of auditory input, like T.V. or radio, are not sufficient to gain fluency. Futhermore, Lightbown, Spada and Ellis have all claimed that “intersectional modifications” which take place in the conversations between native and non-native speakers are necessary for second language learners. This is how they develop the skills that allows for understanding spontaneous speech and all of it’s modifications. 4 The approach of interactionalist theories is partially rebutted by Noam Chomsky, who brought attention to the fact that input is an inherently incomplete source of information. Spoken language is full of such “ungrammaticalities”, which without some other grammatical training, the L1 learner could never recognize and use appropriately.5 Chomsky’s theory, when applied to L2 learning, presents the L1 grammatical training as the base on which a student can build his or her understanding of L2 ungrammaticalities. In this light, a solid base of L1 language becomes more important in L2 acquisition. Furthermore, the necessity of formal grammar training cannot be completely ignored. It is worth mentioning the behavioristic approach in line with Pavlov. Applied to the ESL field, presenting students with encouragement and rewards for creating proper English, in tandem with negative reactions for inaccurate language use, the students gains English habits that are cemented through these positive and negative reactions. This approach seems to infer that student mistakes must be corrected often for the students to learn to avoid them.6 Differences in L1 and L2 Acquisition The gap between L1 and L2 acquisition can only be completely overcome in childhood. The main reason, as various studies have shown, is biological. The plasticity of a child’s brain and the flexibility of their speech muscles allow them to completely adapt their speech to the foreign language medium. As such, there is only so much sense, in trying to imitate the learning process of a child in his or her L1 in an adult ESL classroom. Another relevant reason, why adult L2 learners require a separate method, is the presence inhibitions which children have not yet developed.7 Every person forms inhibitions to protect their own ego, an as such, has his or her own difficulties entering a role as a complete beginner, who is bound to make many mistakes. A unique process in L2 acquisition is Fossilization, which is defined as the process by: “which non-target norms become fixed in Interlanguage.”8 Age, various social factors and psychological tendencies are partially responsible for the learners ability to master new language material. There is not much that an ESL teacher can do about age other than to slow down the lessons and encouraging full exploitation of that material, which the student is able to master. As most social and psychological factors are rooted outside the classroom, there are limits to a teacher’s ability to compensate for these problems. It is, however, productive to strive to create a positive classroom environment: encouraging and praising correct language use, eliciting structures that are at the student’s level and avoiding excessive negativity. Fossilized language habits are very difficult to remove. As such, teachers should take special care to address mistakes promptly. According to Schuman, language acquisition is directly tied to cultural acquisition. The stresses of being confronted with a different culture forces the student to adapt. Ideally the confrontation is so intense, that they have to adapt behavioral patterns and speech. This process decreases the psychological distance between the student and the carriers of the language he is trying to learn. Accordingly, Schuman suggested that the “the greater contact with L2 speakers and culture [which] takes place[,] the more acquisition occurs.”9 This hypothesis is especially interesting for ESL teaching methodology, because it suggests that it is preferable to interact with native speakers, because the cultural strain aids language acquisition. Conclusion The relationship between the two processes of acquisition is far from straightforward. The similarities and differences of acquisition processes, however, give valuable insight that allows us to judge and perfect ESL teaching methodologies and adapt existing ones to current research standards. As a general conclusion, it can be said, that there are a several different levels on which a teacher has to communicate in order to best assist the learning process of his or her students. While free speech and stressful cultural confrontations spur the unconscious to adapt itself to the new language and culture, these experiences are not enough in order to produce correct language forms in correct contexts. Accordingly, traditional grammar exercises have their own importance. Furthermore, the teacher must constantly be aware of the social contexts he or she is creating for the student and how this affects them forming language inhibitions. Lastly, the relative success of learning a new language is of course directly tied up in the psychological well-being of the student, the frequency of stimuli they receive, their ability to process it and the frequency with which they receive positive and negative feedback. Ideally, the frequency of correction and reinforcement from the teacher, the difficulty of the course material and the question of whether to create intense cultural confrontation should be decided based on the student’s individual psychological state. 1. Ipek, Hulya: Comparing and Contrasting First and Second Language Acquisition: Implications for Language Teachers, published in English Language Teaching, 2009, 155-163. 2. Krashen 1992, cited in Ipek, 2009, 155-163. 3. Ipek, 2009, 155-163. 4. See Lightbown and Spada, 2006, Ellis 1994, cited in Ipek, 2009, 155-163. 5. Ellis, 1994, cited in Ipek, 2009, 155-163. 6. See Lightbown and Spada, 2006, cited in Ipek, 2009, 155-163. 7. See Ipek, 2009, 155-163. 8. Ellis, 1994; McLaughlin, 1987 cited in Ipek, 2009, 155-163. 9. Schuman, 1982 cited in Ipek, 2009, 155-163.