More recent investigations of how people become language users have centered on the distinction between acquisition and learning. In particular Stephen Krashen characterized the former as a subconscious process which results in the knowledge of a language whereas the latter results only in ‘knowing about’ the language. Acquired language is somehow ‘better’ than learnt language because someone would have to concentrate to produce the latter, thus interrupting the flow of language production. The suggestion Krashen made is that second (or foreign) language learning needs to be more like children’s acquisition of their native language. Krashen assumed that children hear and experience a considerable amount of the language in situations where they are involved in communicating with an adult. Their gradual ability to use language is the result of many subconscious processes. They have not consciously set out to learn a language; it happens as a result of the input they receive and the experiences which accompany this input. However, second (or foreign) language learning is not the same case with children acquiring their first language. There are some problems that must take into consider applying this theory on second (or foreign) language learning.
First, the division between acquisition and learning doesn’t make sense. In the first place it will be almost impossible to say whether someone has learnt or acquired a certain piece of language. If two people are exposed to the same roughly-tuned input how will we know whether one makes conscious attempts to learn it or not? It is almost impossible, in other words, to test this hypothesis since to do so we would have to be able to see into the minds of all the people who had been exposed to the same input and record their thought processes. Neither does it make sense that learnt language can’t become part of the acquired language store, as Krashen seems to suggest. It is clear that language that has been learnt does ‘sink in’ at some stages; maybe students will not be able to produce it immediately in spontaneous conversation, but it will eventually come out, given time. Learnt language which is practiced does seem to become part of the acquired store. Even thought it may be the case that only certain grammatical features are susceptible to such treatment. It has been suggested that freer practice activities may act as a switch which allows consciously learnt language to transfer to the acquired store. However, in short, this hypothesis seems artificial.
Another problem is that acquisition takes a long time. In fact, time is a crucial issue. As well known, language can’t be mastered by learning it just once, rather we must learn it gradually. With a great deal of repeated exposures to the language, students can acquire the language faster and remember it longer. However, the vast majority of students in the world study language for about two and a half hours a week, for about thirty week a year, which is not much time when compared to the time taken by children to acquire their first language. As a result, students need more time to acquire second (or foreign) language ability as much as the time that children have when acquiring their first language.
Another problem we must also look at is the condition under which language learning takes place. For instance, with small classes and comfortable rooms it may be possible to train students to take charge of their own learning over a period of week in a well-equipped school. However, most teachers handle large classes in uncomfortable surroundings. Therefore, transcribing the students’ tape recorded English after a Community Language Learning, for instance, is not such a good idea with a class of thirty students. It is assumed that conditions influence the activities that will be used on language learning as well as the effectiveness of students acquiring language.
The last problem is resources. We can assume that children can acquire their first language because they have a great deal of chances to come into contact with their first language as well as regular access to their first language-speaking people and other resources. These are not the same when compared to many students of second (or foreign) language learning who have fewer chance to take place in real communicative activities with the language as well as to get language resources easily. Moreover, some resources are commercial and cost expensive. In short, many second (or foreign) language learnings have limited access to language resources.
In summary, there are some problems with Krashen’s theory of learning. In first place his hypothesis seems artificial. The division he made between acquisition and learning doesn’t make sense. Moreover, his suggestion that second (or foreign) language learning needs to be more like Children’s acquisition of their native language makes considerable demands to some factors, such as time, condition and resource. Clearly, learning second (or foreign) language is not the same case with children acquiring their first language.
No comments:
Post a Comment