Editorial
For more on language acquisition by the same author see: Language Acquisition and Skills: On Reading

Meditating on the Issue of Language Acquisition versus Language Learning

Consuela Popa, Romania

Consuela Popa is an English teacher. In the past she used to teach English and French. She has taught in state schools, high schools and secondary schools, at all levels, and different profiles. She is interested in linguistic research, cultural studies and writing in English and in the study of other languages: French, Spanish. Christian theology, sociology, psychology are her other fields of interest. She cherishes a lot the opportunity of writing for HLT, since the attitudes and values discovered this way help grow and feed the spirit. As artists, linguists should be aware of the fact that interdisciplinary aspects are unavoidable and that we should touch a variety of fields through our writing. E-mail: konskris2001@yahoo.com

The “exposure to language” principle in language teaching is directly reflected in the “acquisition versus learning” debate. Language skills can be inborn, and can also grow during and through instruction. Language exposure is one means of ensuring that acquisition is favored and natural absorption of language input is provided to the maximum.

In this respect, communicative methods tend to be the most appropriate in order to make use of these principles. Spontaneity, speaking skills used on a large scale can lead towards confidence and can disinhibit our learners. The set of methods belonging to the communicative trend can perfectly suit a language teaching approach based upon the above mentioned principles of exposure to language, acquisition and learning. Of course, acquisition can be seen, theoretically, as being situated at the other end of the educational axis, somewhat totally opposed to the rigid and didacticist “learning” principle.

But then, no educational process can exist without study and learning, no matter how abstractly our thinking might separate the two. Learning, enforcing knowledge, using and developing language skills and cultivating our potential comes alongside the more or less natural “acquisition” of language, that we all know about. So one might raise the issue of why not juxtaposing the two notions and understand them as acquisition and learning, for within the pragmatic acceptance, things must go hand in hand.

But for someone who is quite dedicated to the lofty ideal of language learning through maximum of natural absorption and exposure, through spontaneous interaction, the contrast “acquisition”-learning seems, when looking into depth, also plausible, and in the lines that follow I shall try to explain why.

First, when I try to perceive “learning”, as didacticist and old-fashioned, I go back in time and see one scenery that some classical books were portraying for us: a behaviorist system of education (with a negative meaning assigned to it), in which school and instruction were constituted upon the fundamental of rusty memorization, memorization that makes up a good source for comedy novels, rather than normal and sane idea of normal learning environment. Memorization destroyed thinking, the healthy mechanisms of individual judgment and critical thinking, and any possibility for the individual in order to personalize learning to his own experience. Of course, the negative and harmful ideas, meaning and interpretations associated with the behaviorist trend in education psychology and evolution should not be understood as absolute, since there are acceptances and views upon behaviorism that may differ considerably from the less agreeable one, and there are pedagogues that are able to interpret any teaching and learning trend as capable of bearing positive aspects and outcomes, if taken in the right manner. In a word, while it is absolutely true that there have definitely been wrongly understood and practiced pedagogical trends in history, every trend, at least on a psychological level, can also, if properly exploited, bring about advantages and paths for reflection.

But during those times in which behaviorism made a regrettable picture, as learning was not left in the hands of the learner at all (teaching and learning should be in the hands of good teachers and learners alike), the teaching-learning process could not have possibly been seen as a reciprocal exchange of knowledge and feed-back and as a process in which teachers and learners are partners in the educational cycle. The learner was a passive recipient of some distorted, forced upon learner, and so called “education”, and he was a prisoner in a cage of imposed principles, principles that were forced through constrictive punitive means. Or if in less severe cases, we would rather not choose the word “punishment”, as a keyword reflecting the traits of the behaviorist educational trend previously criticized, then the word “sanction”, remains, still, in bold.

Memorization hindered acquisition, and the cultural level of the passive recipients of instruction was obviously low. Logical thinking, free thinking altogether, individual filtering of information, debate, interpretation, analysis, synthesis, were all jeopardized and learner confidence and personality were laid low. Creativity also lacked, since growing in such environment was difficult or impossible and the excessive behaviorist approach, with inhibiting frames of instruction, prevented creative or original ideas from flourishing, from flowing.

Moreover, to my mind, when it comes to “learning”, in the old, didacticist style, the “rule learning” strikes out automatically, almost out of context, and the “rule” stands there just like that, just like a “rule for rule’s sake”. And even if rules are meant to be linked together and they are all applicable to different situations and contexts, still, they prevented learners from acquiring language in a positive affective atmosphere, anxiety low, they prevented the learners from naturally absorbing language in a free environment in which language immersion and maximized comprehensible input should be on top of the menu.

Rules used to be taught almost (or simply!), idiotically, sometimes (in fact, many times!), without students knowing what those rules served for –that is, the pragmatic context in which the rules had to be applied later on, was not linked to the teaching or presentation of these rules, therefore, isolating the very meaning of these rules from the topics of the subject matter for which they were meant.

Language learning must be a process through which the learner infuses himself with the spoken language as much as possible, and so, “correctness” of form and its analysis should be left for later stages, language study as a process in itself being unable to effectively raise the spoken level with everything that it implies, comprehension, performance, etc.

Learners do carry on with them, a natural potential for languages that they were endowed with by God, and also, enthusiasm and motivation specific to every individual, depending upon the reasons why they are interested to learn a certain language and become proficient in it. Of course, affinity with the language in case, along with their familiarity with the discourse structure of that language, at the textual level and beyond it, constitute the basis for further dwelling on language instruction and in my opinion, (at least this was my case as a learner), it is more than 80 per cent of the needed “munition” in order to become a proficient language speaker/user. Personal inclination towards that language, along with motivation that arises from the psychological profile of the learner (the learner wishes to identify himself with that foreign culture, his ego is enhanced as a result of his mastery and speaking of that language, his career boosted, etc), can lead the student towards great achievements in foreign language learning.

I see “learning”, in this context, moreover as a “polishing”, or better said, “cultivated polishing, of the acquisition that the recipient has gone through. As a result, an important issue comes out-and as in language approach theories this issue is no longer a new one anymore, we know that “language learning will take care of itself”. Language learning will take care of itself, provided that the right attitudes and values are properly understood and realized, provided that the learner’s environment is the right one for language progress and mastery, that is, the affective filters are kept low, passion and interest are constantly fostered, learning atmosphere is meaningful to the learners` experience and personality, warmth, encouragement, optimism, positive teaching and learning attitudes are never neglected, etc.

And in this respect, when it comes to accomplishing our language mastery, immersion in the target language culture is also a vital component. Not all teachers might possess enough history knowledge of that culture that he or she is teaching, or other cultural details, but though, they should improve it, for it is an important pre-requisite, before starting a successful target language course, for the teacher and trainers to know that being more than familiar with the culture and history of the language that they are teaching, is not enough, they must improve it constantly through their own choice and option, through their passion for it, and they must adapt it to their teaching practice in class.

Acquisition of language must take place in an environment that attempts to provide not only the best teaching methods and strategies of the target language involved, but also a “replica” of the cultural background/place of the language in case. “Language immersion” cannot take place if as students, we see teachers who are not passionate enough in speaking that particular language, who are not trained enough in associated cultural aspects/interdisciplinary aspects, who do not identify themselves with the foreign culture that they teach (because they do not merely teach a language, they teach a whole cultural system of values and verbal expression), who do not have enough reflexes and attitudes rooted deep down that should be perceived through their foreign language speaking!

Acquisition of language takes place when comprehensible input is provided. As we know, comprehensible input implies a slightly above the level language input, a “level plus one” approximate threshold of language parameters. When comprehension is achieved, the output of our students proves to us how well they have understood and appropriated the language and message. Indeed, when it comes to the message of the communicative act that has been performed in the target language, this message illustrates the process of acquisition, in which the parts involved (the teacher as speaker and the students as listeners/interlocutors), do not concentrate upon the form of the communication, upon the written “shape” or upon the rule, but upon the utterance and meaning conveyed. Their focus is therefore not upon the “form” of their utterance.

Nor is analyzing form and structure a goal in language acquisition. The analyze of form and structure belongs to the “language learning” sector properly named. Anyway, when wishing to provide quality comprehensible input, good teachers can teach grammar in the target language, thus making sure that language exposure in this way helps raise the communicative level of students, since students will be challenged to improve their level by listening to the teacher’s explanations in the target language. Teaching grammar and rules is not acquisition, but this can however, foster acquisition if it is an incentive to “immerse” in language through the given attention towards the message that is being transmitted in the target language.

Indeed, it seems that the best thing a teacher can do when helping acquire a foreign language is not language study (which is learning about the language and its rules and specificities), it is not “teaching learners”, but helping them “acquire” that language, its system of values, its attitudes; the best thing to do for a teacher is helping them perceive, use their intuition, “go with the stream”, the best thing to do is also enabling them to grow in a positive language development environment. Nurturing the best environment conditions is a pillar for achieving acquisition.

On the other hand, the “learning” coordinate has to do with several circumstances in which teachers are placed: teachers as organizers and managers of a rather “imposed” system of interaction, acting as rule givers, controllers, monitors. Teachers, when they act as organizers of the “learning” act, appear as monitors as well, since they have to take care of the accuracy, phonetic, lexical and grammatical, of the communication that is taking place. In speech or in written form, they monitor, or correct, either pronunciation, either all the other aspects. When the emphasis is placed upon this “monitoring” function, we have to do with the learning, not acquisition, component. When the language experience is taken over by the acquisition component, then, as mentioned before, we have a communicative approach, natural interaction in the target language. Natural interaction in the target language means spontaneity is a keyword; interaction in the target language is very useful to learners if they hear meaningful conversation and spoken language from native speakers who are positive and can engage them in the speech act, who can help listeners activate their affect to the benefit of language acquisition.

Indeed, as you can see below in a quote by Stephen Krashen that I enjoy, communication comes first:

"The best methods are therefore those that supply 'comprehensible input' in low anxiety situations, containing messages that students really want to hear. These methods do not force early production in the second language, but allow students to produce when they are 'ready', recognizing that improvement comes from supplying communicative and comprehensible input, and not from forcing and correcting production." (Stephen Krashen)

In this respect, the monitoring function would seem even more strict that one might think, since it does not stop on a surface, but it goes beyond mere “monitoring”, since “forcing and correcting” production, as a phenomena, becomes a coercing act, and teachers as controllers are opposed to their role as acquisition “providers” and agents.

Of course, sooner or later, communication will need to be “edited”, and good writing, academic writing, as a reflection of language mastery, will eventually make use of the editing function or monitoring function as a vital requirement. The past and present world of academic English comprises philologists and people within the literary field, as well as people from all the other fields, who need not only speaking exams, but also the written word under different forms, exams and language certificates for professional and general purposes.

Alongside the acquisition fundament, learning/editing/monitoring comes as a necessary ingredient, even though as thinkers, we might separate well the two notions. The learning component is actually a social code if we look at it in depth, we see it as a tool helping people from a social point of view in all kind of social conventions.

Certainly, (and here comes the wonderful paradox!), for someone who wishes to be an accomplished linguist, writer, academic language user, etc, apart from the “acquisition” component strong basis which is specific to every personality in case, the “polished” language aspect, or the “editing”, monitoring function, comes almost as a second nature. The “working” out of the acquisition that has taken place, that has been achieved, is reflected through how much “learning, or “editing”, or language study/analyze, awareness, has been done as well. The “diamond in the rough” which is acquisition is then polished through the monitoring function to make a fine jewel. Indeed, as Krashen again has stated in his theories, learning does influence acquisition and acquisition circumstances can lead to different response towards “learning”-different people go through different process type while “learning” a language.

Meaningful message sending, either in literature or in other fields will make use of the “polished” language function in order to succeed. Editing is an art in itself, it is both an ‘art for art’s sake”, as well as a means for better reaching the purpose of the message. At an abstract level, those who strictly delineate “acquisition” and “learning” might blame me for creating ambiguity or for “advocating” learning, when in fact, I simply tried to seek out the benefits of the two while looking from different angles. It is also true that for me, the acquisition and exposure to language issues seem much more fascinating than anything and I acknowledge that fascination, while at the same time wishing, like so many people, to become an accomplished language user/writer.

References

Krashen, Stephen, D. Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition, Prentice Hall International, 1987

Krashen, Stephen, D. Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Prentice-Hall International, 1988

Krashen, S (1985). The Input Hypothesis: issues and implications. Longman, New York

Abudarham, S. (1987), Bilingualism and the Bilingual, NFER-Nelson Publishing, Oxford

Lambert, W.E (1972), Language, Psychology and Culture, Stanford, UP

Lambert, W.E. (1981), 'Bilingualism and language acquisition', in H. Winitz (ed.), Native and Foreign Language Acquisition, N.Y. Academy of Sciences

MacWhinney, B. (ed.) 1987. Mechanisms of Language Acquisition. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Please check the How to be a Teacher Trainer course at Pilgrims website.
Please check the How the Motivate your Students course at Pilgrims website.