Are these 17 statements about language acquisition true? Answers from the research.

Here’s a list of popular assumptions about language learning and teaching from Lightbrown and Spada (2006).  I found this on leaky grammar, which is well worth checking out.  I’m responding to these statements based on research from Stephen Krashen, Wynne Wong, Bill VanPatten, and of course the stuff in Lightbrown and Spada’s 2013 text, which everyone should read.

1. Languages are learned mainly through imitation  

No.  While obviously there is imitation– especially from children– the research is clear: most language learning comes from receiving aural or written comprehensible input.  At much later levels in the L2 acquisition process, some explicit feedback– especially for writing– will help things along.

2. Parents usually correct young children when they make grammatical errors 

Depends.  Some do, some don’t, some sometimes do.  There’s no evidence to show that this practice works.

3. Highly intelligent people are good language learners 

What does “learning” mean?  Research shows that people who traditionally test high on IQ tests (which have well-documented biases) are pretty good at doing things like remembering and consciously applying grammar rules.   However, many illiterate people– who would massively bomb any IQ test– have acquired many languages.

4. The most important predictor of success in second language acquisition is motivation 

No.  While motivation may keep students “tuned in” to instruction– they will listen/read much more (i.e. receive comprehensible input) if they want to learn– all the motivation in the world will not overcome ineffective methods.  A teacher who is providing incomprehensible input, or boring tasks, will eliminate motivation in all but the eggest-headed of students, or, even if those students stay engaged, will be unable to ‘reach’ them.  Krashen has declared motivation less than important.

Related:  motivation to what?  Most students don’t especially care about Spanish, French, etc.  I sure didn’t…what I did care about was being able to meet and talk to people in Mexico, read Paz in the original, order food, meet Colombian women, etc.

5. The earlier a second language is introduced in school programs, the greater the likelihood of success in learning 

Depends.  Canadian data on French Immersion supports this theory.  However, if a language program doesn’t follow brain rules– it provides incomprehensible input, it’s boring, it scares learners, etc– more instruction is not a good idea.  We also know that adults, under the right conditions (good comprehensible input), can massively out-pace Immersion learners and kids in acquisition.  Some estimates are that 1,000 hours of comprehensible input will build functional fluency.  Immersion and early exposure do one thing MUCH better than later exposure:  get rid of accents.

6. Most of the mistakes that second language learners make are due to interference from their first language 

No; only a very few are.  Many are interlanguage.  As Lightbrown and Spada show (in their 2013 4th edition), many errors made by second-language learners do not reflect their native language.  Indeed, studies show that many interlanguage errors are common across cultures and languages.

7. The best way to learn new vocabulary is through reading. 

Yes, provided the reading is comprehensible and interesting enough that learners will do a lot of it.  Some studies suggest that over 75% of a literate adult’s vocabulary comes from reading.

8. It is essential for learners to be able to pronounce all the individual sounds in the second language. 

Essential for what?  To acquire the language?  No.  There are plenty of cases of learning that happen without speaking.  I learned some Mandarin in 1995.  I couldn’t speak it for the life of me, but after working with my Chinese boss for 6 months, I could understand sentences such as “go to the back and grab the cleaning cloth.”  However, eventually, people will want to “roughly get” pronunciation because  saying “I have a big deck” wrong can make you sound like, uhh, well…

9. Once learners know roughly 1000 words and the basic structure of a language, they can easily participate in conversations with native speakers 

Generally.  BUT: conversational success also depends on

  • whether or not the native speaker can slow down and simplify enough for the L2 learner
  • what they are talking about– a native-speaker engineer talking engineering will be incomprehensible to an L2 learner who doesn’t know anything about engineering
  • what “know” means.  “Knowing’ grammar rules and vocab lists alone won’t work– the L2 learner must have had their 1,000 words presented in meaningful, comprehensible ways, over and over.

10. Teachers should present grammatical rules one at a time, and learners should practice examples of each one before going on to another. 

No. Grammatical rules are acquired at the learner’s own rate; some rule acquisition– e.g. use of negation in English–  follows predictable patterns, while some is piecemeal (i.e. appearing to be acquired, disappearing, reappearing etc).  Presenting rules in sequence will also make for much less compelling input (see the ¡Díme! texts for an example).  Best practice:  present a comprehensible and interesting variety of multidimensional language so that whatever learners are ready to acquire is there all the time, as Susan Gross has said. VanPatten says that verb “[t]enses are not acquired as “units,” and the brain doesn’t store grammar as a textbook-stated rule.”

11. Teachers should teach simple language structures before complex ones. 

No.  The classic example is the third-person -s ending in English.  It appears simple, elementary, etc, yet is often very late acquired.  What is a “simple” structure anyway?  In Spanish, children often acquire such supposedly “complex” grammar as the subjunctive before they properly acquire the present tense.  In French and Spanish, there are supposedly “complex” verb tense items–  from the imperfect and preterite tenses– which are much more frequently used than some present tense verbs.

12. Learners’ errors should be corrected as soon as they are made in order to prevent the formation of bad habits. 

No.  There is no evidence to suggest that this works.  Error correction may actually slow acquisition because, let’s face it, it’s not fun to be shown “you’re wrong,” and, as it has been well-documented that happy secure learners = better learners, the self-consciousness that comes with error correction may impede acquisition.

13. Teachers should use materials that expose students to only those language structures they have already been taught 

This is 95% true…but learners can, and do, use metacognitive strategies to figure out new words or grammar, and/or often do so unconsciously.  While it is important that about 95% of language be 100% comprehensible, some “new stuff” is essential to growth.

14. When learners are allowed to interact freely (for example, in group or pair activities), they copy each others’ mistakes.

No.  They often make the same mistakes, but these are generally not from copying each other, but from interlanguage processes.    While language in a communicative classroom is typically impoverished– learners provide other learners with their by-definition low-level output– this does not generally cause errors.  The communicative classroom– which features lots of student talk– is, however, a bad idea, because students are not giving each other quality input.

15. Students learn what they are taught. 

Mostly, depending on the quality of instruction. In a comprehensible input language classroom– done properly— students will acquire most of the vocab and grammar that is presented, and will pick up a lot of things that are not consciously and deliberately presented.  However, if grammar is taught via the rule-then-practice method, or vocab is taught by list memorising, students will acquire much less than “what they are taught.”  Acquisition = how much repetitive, compelling and comprehensible input students get.  Students will not necessarily acquire what we teach when we teach it, as Long (1997) notes.

16. Teachers should respond to students’ errors by correctly rephrasing what they have said rather than by explicitly pointing out the error. 

This will feel better to the students than explicit correction, but there is no evidence it aids acquisition.  My view:  corrected output errors in a T.P.R.S. class are necessary to some extent because they provide better input for other learners.

and finally,

17. Students can learn both language and academic content (for example, science and history) simultaneously in classes where the subject matter is taught in their second language. 

Yes, absolutely, provided the language is 100% comprehensible.

Do kids get “over-used” to one accent?

I was at a workshop yesterday and somebody asked “in TPRS, if it’s all teacher-talk, don’t the kids get too used to that teacher’s specific accent, and won’t that make life tougher for them in the real world?”

My answer:

The question focuses on the “teacher-centeredness” of a TPRS class.  There are several responses to this.  What matters most– that kids understand a TON of the TL, or that they have heard a bunch of accents? 

a)  From my own experiences in Spanish-speaking countries, I’ve noticed that it’s not accent that creates communication problems for non-native speakers as much as slang and speed. 

I feel like I can quite clearly “hear” (and then “see” written in my mind) when a Mexican says “No manches tanto, wey.”  (Loose polite translation– don’t be an idiot, or that’s a bad idea)  Yes, he sounds a little bit different than a Guatemalan, and a fair bit different than an Argentinian, but I can get a mental picture of the sound.  It’s the slang that gets you– what is “manches” and what is “wey”?  I have found the same thing with Argies, Colombians, etc.  I can “see” the words in my head but the meaning eludes me.

When we are talking standard Spanish– say, ordering food, or getting directions– there are minor differences in sound with different accents, but what really gets you is the speed at which native speakers talk.  When I hear Argies, or Mexican kids (especially from big cities) speak, I hear bla bla bla bla vamos bla bla bla que? bla bla bla.

For me, the most important thing is, the more vocab I have acquired (even if only for recognition), the more pieces of language I can “assemble” into something coherent when confronted with either slang or a fast speaker. 

Think of it this way:  Which of the following is easier for you to understand?

1) John bla bla goes bla bla Berlin.

2) John bla bla bla bla bla Berlin.

The more specific bits we know, the easier it is to “guess around the edges” and decode from context when faced with native-speaker slang and speed.   

b)  If you are using a textbook program, you are using both your own voice and that of the program CDs, videos, etc, to use the TL.  The problem here is that most teachers of foreign languages top out at around B2 on the D.E.L.F. scale, are not native speakers, and must anyway slow down and simplify their speech for kids.  Most textbook TL is very standardised.  You won’t find strong regional accents, slang, etc in those (one of the reasons kids often ask “can you teach us how to swear?”, a job I leave to the amazing film Y tu Mama Tambien).  

So, regardless of whether or not you use TPRS, and whether you use textbook audio/video, the kids are still getting simplified, standardised speech.

c)  Krashen– and others– argue that “comprehensible input” drives acquisition more than anything else.  If you do want to expose kids to “authentic language” (language by and for native speakers) in order to get used to the accent…you run the risk of them hearing bla bla bla bla vamos bla bla bla.  So what are they acquiring? Unless you explain what the bla bla means– and you can repeat it enough, while kids are paying attention– the kids are not getting what they need to acquire language.  

I got an email recently from a Mom whose 4th-grade daughter is failing French Immersion.  The teacher speaks too quickly.  When asked to slow down, he replied “the students must learn to understand authentic French.”  Yup…but the way they learn tto udnerstand is going to be via comprehensible input, not via adult-level, native-speaker French.  The teacher refused to change his speed of speech, so the Mom pulled the kid, put her in a regular school (with a couple of blocks a week of French) and the kid is happy now because the language is pitched at what she needs and can do.

When I present to schools, E.S.L. schools, District in-services, etc etc, my two main points are a) go slow, and b) keep it comprehensible 

Questions?  chris(dott)stolz(att)gmail(dott)com