How Languages Are Learned?
What does science say about language learning? This article explores the book How Languages are Learned by authors Patsy Lightbown and Nina Spada. It’s a training guide for foreign language teachers. This book explores various research studies on language learning and summarises six common methods with their supporting and opposing evidence:
1. Accuracy First
The conventional approach to teaching languages was translation, which involved assigning students lists of words and grammar rules and having them translate texts into Latin or Greek. This might help understand ancient literature, but it falls short of the communicative objectives for modern French or Spanish students.
Inspired by behavioural psychology, the audio-lingual approach aimed to replace the text-based approach with a call-and-response technique. Using this more up-to-date approach, students mimic their teacher to construct proper phrases. Theoretically, learners would not make mistakes if patterns were taught correctly from the start.
Key Assumptions of the Accuracy-First Approach
This approach has been popular in classrooms for a long time but lost favour among researchers when its basic assumptions were questioned:
- Language use does not rely primarily on precise imitation. We create new sentences to express the meanings we want; thus, audio-lingual approach might not always imply correct language acquisition.
- Students seem to learn grammar rules in a fixed order regardless of how they are taught, indicating that avoiding all mistakes is nearly impossible.
- Classroom learning contrasts with natural language use. Studies have shown that students who were taught a specific pattern overused it and made numerous mistakes in other sentences.
Perhaps the final blow to psychologist B.F. Skinner's behavioural explanation of language came from philosopher Noam Chomsky, who encouraged researchers to seek new language-learning methods.
2. Input Is All You Need
Linguist Stephen Krashen was a strong critic of the accuracy-first approach. His input hypothesis suggests that grammar exercises and repetition are ineffective in language learning. Instead, you only need comprehensible input—language you listen to or read to understand its meaning, not analyse its grammatical structures. This means that a book, a street sign, or a conversation you're trying to understand is input, while sentences learned from a textbook are not.
Input-based methods have their appeal, as drills are not necessarily enjoyable and speaking opportunities can be rare and awkward. Books and audio recordings are accessible everywhere. According to one study, students learning in an input-based classroom performed as well as, if not better than, their peers in traditional settings, including in speaking skills, even though they never practiced speaking.
However, some studies have refuted Krashen's bold claims. Research on students learning French through massive input found that despite years of using this method and reaching native speaker levels in comprehension, they still made grammatical mistakes that native speakers wouldn’t. It appears that students benefit from dedicating some lessons specifically to learning grammar and syntax.
3. Speaking is Paramount
Another theory in language learning states that students need interactive communication, not just input. Merrill Swain's Output Hypothesis counters Krashen’s Input Hypothesis, arguing that expressing more complex ideas drives language learning. Similarly, linguist Michael Long’s Interaction Hypothesis supports the necessity of interaction, not just input, for learning.
Among the advantages of Interaction-Based approach is that conversational partners adjust their communication to ensure the student understands. In contrast, a book or audio recording is static, making finding materials at the appropriate difficulty level crucial.
Another advantage is that genuine interaction allows students to make assumptions about language style and receive immediate feedback based on their success. Methods focusing solely on input or drills do not offer this experiential learning.
However, purely interactive methods without grammar study can hinder the development of correct speaking habits. Conversational partners often do not correct mistakes if the meaning is clear, and most students do not benefit from feedback that merely rephrases their sentences correctly.
4. Integrating Language with Other Subjects
Time is a major obstacle to learning languages. Children learn and speak their native language constantly, but older learners, no matter how intelligent, cannot match this if they study the language for only half an hour a week.
One solution is to combine language learning with other academic goals. In these programs, the language is not taught separately but is used to teach other subjects.
French language programs in Canada are a prime example. Starting from kindergarten, English-speaking students study the curriculum in French instead of English. By the time they reach 12th grade, they become almost native speakers and have completed the same coursework as their counterparts, who are taught in English.
The Drawbacks of Language Learning Programs
The authors mentioned above noted that these programs are great for learning the language; however, some issues came to light, such as:
- Students may take several years to achieve good academic performance in a new language. This suggests the approach may not succeed if applied later in life or if students do not have enough time to adjust to the new teaching language due to a heavy curriculum.
- This approach might not lead to native-like proficiency if students do not have enough practice opportunities or if the language is not taught as a separate subject.
5. Learning in the Correct Sequence
According to research done in the late 1980s by linguist Manfred Pienemann and colleagues, grammar rules cannot be learned in any given sequence. Learners of foreign languages, like children learning their native tongue, acquire grammatical structures in a fixed sequence regardless of the teaching method.
That being said, vocabulary can be taught at any time, but certain grammatical features, such as subject-verb inversion in English questions, need to be learned in a specific sequence for proper understanding.
This contrasts with the first approach because if some mistakes result from not following the correct sequence, constantly focusing on error correction can be counterproductive.
The takeaway from this approach is not that students don't benefit from grammar study but rather that grammar should be taught in a sequence that aligns with their natural understanding of the language.
6. Combining All Methods
After reviewing previous approaches alongside decades of accumulated research, the authors suggest avoiding extremes in past language learning theories.
- Contrary to the audio-lingual approach, students should be able to use the language meaningfully from the start.
- Beyond pure input, interaction, or output approaches, most students benefit from focusing on language structure to achieve accurate speaking skills.
To Sum Up
The authors reviewed numerous studies showing that students' performance improves when they learn grammar, provided it's taught and practiced effectively. However, it's also clear that achieving fluency is unlikely without real communication.
Add comment