Don't use no double negatives.
Don't never use no triple negatives.
Stamp out and eliminate redundancy and tautology.
Avoid clichés like the plague.
All generalizations are bad.
A preposition is a bad thing to end a sentence with.
And don't start a sentence with a conjunction.
Everyone should be a non-conformist.
People who insult others are jerks.
Always be sincere, even if you don't mean it.
Death to intolerance.
Down with categorical imperatives.
Avoid those run-on sentences that just go on, and on, and on, theynever stop, they just keep rambling, and you really wish the personwould just shut up, but no, they just keep going, they're worse thanthe Energizer Bunny, they babble incessantly, and these sentences, theyjust never stop, they go on forever...if you get my drift...
Nobody has a right to his opinion.
Never contradict yourself always.
Good people like I are never self-righteous.
You should never use the second person.
Never go off on tangents, which are lines that intersect a curve at only one point and were discovered by Euclid, who lived in the sixth century, which was an era dominated by the Goths, who lived in what we now know as Poland...
Always do what is right, even if it's wrong.
Remember what Ralph Waldo Emerson once said, "I hate quotations."
Excessive use of exclamation points can be disastrous!!!!!
Remember to end each sentence with a period
Don't use commas, which aren'tnecessary.
Don't use question marks inappropriately?
Don't be terse.
Don't obfuscate your theses with extraneous verbiage.
Never use that totally cool, radically groovy out-of-date slang.
Stop calling me immature or I'll tell on you.
Avoid tumbling off the cliff of triteness into the black abyss of overused metaphors.
Keep your ear to the grindstone, your nose to the ground, take the bull by the horns of a dilemma, and stop mixing your metaphors.
Fight to the death for your pacifist aims.
Avoid those abysmally horrible, outrageously repellent exaggerations.
Avoid any awful anachronistic aggravating antediluvian alliteration.
Proofread carefully to see if you any words out.
Verbs has to agree with their subjects.
It is wrong to ever split an infinitive.
Be more or less specific.
Parenthetical remarks (however relevant) are (usually) unnecessary.
Also too, never, ever use repetitive redundancies.
No sentence fragments.
Contractions aren't necessary and shouldn't be used.
Foreign words and phrases are not apropos.
Do not be redundant; do not use more words than necessary; it's highly superfluous.
Comparisons are as bad as clichés.
Eschew ampersands & abbreviations, etc.
One-word sentences? Eliminate.
Analogies in writing are like feathers on a snake.
The passive voice is to be ignored.
Use words correctly, irregardless of how others use them.
Understatement is always the absolute best way to put forth earth- shaking ideas.
Use the apostrophe in it's proper place and omit it when its not needed.
If you've heard it once, you've heard it a thousand times: Resist hyperbole; not one writer in a million can use it correctly.
Puns are for children, not groan readers.
Go around the barn at high noon to avoid colloquialisms.
Who needs rhetorical questions?
Avoid "buzz-words"; such integrated transitional scenarios complicate simplistic matters.
Monday, May 14, 2007
Sunday, April 15, 2007
The English National Examination and Its Backwash
English National Examination in junior high school in Indonesia takes the form of multiple choice tests and it only covers reading, vocabulary, grammar, and writing in indirect form. Brown’s (2004, p.37) statement that the design of effective test should point the way to beneficial backwash is very impressive. Until now, my colleague teachers in Indonesia tend to teach their students only the content area to be tested in the national examination. They do this because they will feel appreciated by students’ parents and also the headmaster if their students get good results in their national examination. The result of the national examination is very important. If the students fail to achieve the passing grade (Now 4.5), then, they can not promote to the next level / the higher class.
The problem is the design of the national examination. The area covered in the national examination is limited to reading and writing skills and language components: vocabulary and grammar. So, the teachers will spend most of their time drilling only these areas neglecting to develop the students’ listening and speaking skills. Consequently, it becomes stereotyped that Indonesian students who study abroad will keep quiet in the class but their paper and pencil test result is relatively satisfactory. Here we know that the design of the national test will influence the way the teachers teach their students. I guess if the design of the national test is improved, adopting IELT model for example, the way the teachers teach their students will differ, there will be balance in attention of the teachers to develop the four language skills. The beneficial backwash of the language testing will exist.
However, if the English national examination design is not improved, it is the task of the teachers’ forum to find the ways to minimize the negative or harmful backwash of national English test. So, we, teachers, still give the best to the students.
Reading List:
Brown, H.D (2004). Language assessment: Principles and classroom practices. New York: Pearson Education
The problem is the design of the national examination. The area covered in the national examination is limited to reading and writing skills and language components: vocabulary and grammar. So, the teachers will spend most of their time drilling only these areas neglecting to develop the students’ listening and speaking skills. Consequently, it becomes stereotyped that Indonesian students who study abroad will keep quiet in the class but their paper and pencil test result is relatively satisfactory. Here we know that the design of the national test will influence the way the teachers teach their students. I guess if the design of the national test is improved, adopting IELT model for example, the way the teachers teach their students will differ, there will be balance in attention of the teachers to develop the four language skills. The beneficial backwash of the language testing will exist.
However, if the English national examination design is not improved, it is the task of the teachers’ forum to find the ways to minimize the negative or harmful backwash of national English test. So, we, teachers, still give the best to the students.
Reading List:
Brown, H.D (2004). Language assessment: Principles and classroom practices. New York: Pearson Education
Friday, April 13, 2007
The Existence of Innate Capacity to Learn Fisrt and Second Languages
"The capacity to learn language is deeply ingrained in us as a species, just as the capacity to walk, to grasp objects, to recognize faces. We don't find any serious differences in children growing up in congested urban slums, in isolated mountain villages, or in privileged suburban villas"
Dan Slobin, The Human Language Series,
Program Two, 1994
The existence of innate capacity to learn a first language is continuously debated. There has been plethora of research in child first language acquisition in the last half-century and the results were often in conflict. Some research support the idea of the existence of innate capacity to a first language acquisition while some others challenge it. Slobin’s statement quoted above also concerns with the way children acquire their first language. This essay will critically discuss this statement. After showing what Slobin means by this statement, it will then explore some experts’ ideas about it- whether they are in favour of it or challenge it. This essay, then, discusses to what extent Slobin’s statement above match up with three main perspectives of first language acquisition: behaviorist approach, nativist approach and functional approach. The next part of the essay discusses whether the capacity to learn language mentioned by Slobin is also available for the learning of second language. The term second language used in this essay refers to language other than the learners’ mother tongue (Ellis, 1997, p. 3). There are a number of ways to approach this issue, for example, by comparing characteristics of child’s first language acquisition to characteristics of child’s second language acquisition or by comparing the child’s first language acquisition to adult’s second language acquisition. This essay deals with the second one, that is, look at whether the ‘ingrained capacity’ Slobin refers to is also available for adults in learning second language. The term ‘adult’ in this essay refers to the age after puberty. The choice of this kind of comparison is based on the fact that most students in non- English speaking country like Indonesia start learning English as a second or a foreign language in junior high school (grade 7). Foster- Cohen (2001, p. 336) argues that there are some differences in language acquisition in relation to the age and the most obvious difference is when children come at puberty that is what Lenneberg regarded as the ‘cut off’ for a critical period for second language acquisition. Although it seems illogical to make comparison of child first language acquisition to adult second language acquisition because it will not only compare first and second language learning situation but also compare children and adults at the same time, however, it is a common and important comparison (Brown, 2000, p. 52). It is my contention that the ‘ingrained capacity’ to learn the first language is not available for adults in learning their second language.
There are many characteristics of children’s first language acquisition we can infer from Slobin’s statement above. Firstly, by saying that ‘the capacity to learn languages is deeply ingrained in us as a species’, Slobin seems to suggest that as human being we have an innate capacity to acquire a language and, therefore, secondly, it seems that children find no difficulties in acquiring it. It is just as easy as to be able to walk or to recognize their father’s or mother’s faces. And, the last, Slobin seems to suggest that children do these all subconsciously. As in case of talking, no parents tell their children explicitly to keep their balance so that they can walk, neither do they tell details of their father’s and mother’s faces so that they can recognize them. Children are just able to do so.
Some linguists and experts in language learning share Slobin’s view about the ‘ingrained capacity’ to learn the first language while some others doubt it. Yule (1996, p.175) states that the fact that all children, regardless their background or origin, can acquire their first language in relatively short period of time and without explicit instruction has led to believe that there is an innate capacity to acquire the first language. In line with Yule, Fromkin, Rodman, and Hyams (2007, p.314) tells us about the remarkable feat of children who can make sentences with complex grammar despite their very young age. They suggest that children seem to have already had theory of language with them. Living in a normal environment, children can acquire their first language naturally and without any significant difficulty (Brown, 2000, p.20) because language is a kind of latent structure that already exist in children’s mind and will developed when getting linguistic exposure (Chomsky, 2002, p. 37). However, there are many experts that try to explain children’s first language acquisition without taking innate capacity issue into account. Greg (2003, p.95), for example, tells about emergentism that is an approach to cognition that denies the existence of inborn capacity in language acquisition and claims that simple learning mechanisms are sufficient to bring about the emergence of complex language representation.
Now, this essay will have a look at three main perspectives of first language acquisition: behaviorist, nativist and functional approach and, then, examine whether their ideas coincide with Slobin’s concept of innate capacity in language learning.
First, this essay will examine behavioristic approach in the first language acquisition. Behaviorists believe that children come to the world without pre-determined capacity, they come to the world with tabula rasa, that is a clean slate bearing no preconceived idea about the world as well as about language (Brown, 2000, p. 22) and this is the environment that has significant influence in children’s development. Behaviorists regard language behavior as part of general human behavior and, therefore, can be explained in ‘stimulus- response- reinforcement’ mechanism. They claim that language learning for children is a matter of forming habit through imitation of correct language models (Ellis, 1997, p.31). From this explanation we can assume that behaviorists are only interested in the observable aspects of language acquisition and seem to deny the existence of an innate capacity to learn language as described by Slobin. Ellis (1997, p. 32) states that, when discussing about how children acquire their first language, behaviorists emphasize only what can be directly observed and disregard what goes on in the children’s mind or the innate capacity the children have.
The second perspective of first language acquisition is nativist approach. This perspective emerges as an alternative view of first language acquisition and as an answer of some inadequate explanations about child’s first language acquisition of behaviorist approach. Nativists claim that human language can not be analyzed merely in terms of observable stimuli and response as done by behaviorists (Brown, 2000, p. 9). The fact that children can utter sentences they have never heard before and they can intuitively determine which sentences are possible and which are not arouses curiosity of the underlying phenomenon. Given the facts that children are able to master their mother tongue in relatively short time despite the complexity of the grammar, Chomskey (1965) as cited by Brown (2000, p. 24) maintains the existence of the innate capacity to learn first language. The nativists’ belief that human mind is equipped with innate capacity to learn language- that usually refers to as Language Acquisition Devices (LAD) and in later development refined into Universal Grammar (UG)- seems resemble Slobin’s concept of ingrained capacity to learn language. Finegan (1994, p. 448) adds that this talent (ingrained capacity) is not the privilege of the genius only, meaning that all children regardless their backgrounds and place of origin are gifted with this capacity and it does coincide with Slobin’s view above.
The third perspective of first language learning is functional approach. This perspective is seen as the development of the previous approach and emphasizes more on the function that the language performed rather than on its grammar as in nativist framework (Brown, 2000, p.27). Constructivists, like Piaget, see language development as result of children interaction with their environment (Brown, 2000, p. 28). Although this perspective gives less attention to innateness issue, however, it still considers the influence on innate factor in children’s language development. Slobin (1986) as cited by Brown (2000, p. 29) explains that the speed of language development on functional level is influenced by conceptual and communicative capacities operating in conjunction with innate schemas of cognition, and in formal level is influenced by perceptual and information processing capacities operating in conjunction with innate schema of grammar.
Now, we come to the second part of this essay. In this part, this essay will discuss whether the ‘ingrained capacity’ to learn a first language is also available for learning a second language. This essay will focus on adult second language acquisition for learners usually start to learn their second language when they are in junior high school (grade 7), it means when they have come to puberty. In dealing with this issue, this essay will analyze some factors that influence second language acquisition such as: age, psychomotor development, cognitive factor, linguistic factor, environment factor, and affective factor. It is my contention, then, that the innate capacity to learn languages is not available for adults learning their second language.
The ease with which children acquire their first language as described by Slobin above will not be experienced by adults who learn a second language due to age- related factors. Hamer and Blanc (2000, p.65) state that language learn in early years of age are generally mastered with native-like proficiency, whereas language learned in later years of age are rarely attained in native-like proficiency. The critical period hypothesis is an issue that is usually taken into account when discussing adult second language acquisition. This period was supposed to last from the second year of age to puberty. The critical period hypothesis maintained that children are superior to adults in learning second languages because their brains are more flexible (Lenneberg, 1967; Penfield & Roberts, 1959 as cited by McLaughin, 1992). The young language learners can learn languages easily because their cortex is more plastic than that of older learners and this hypothesis also implies that all language acquisition beyond the critical period will not be as better as children’s acquisition. However, Hamer and Blanc (2000, p. 75) criticize that this hypothesis is not supported by strong empirical evidences. Most of this theory is derived from clinical data obtained from feral, hearing-impaired and linguistically isolated children, so this may not be a good basis for a sensitive period.
Outside of critical period hypothesis, however, there are many studies that support the important of age- factor in second language acquisition. Patkowski (1990, p.85) states that many studies that examine the effect of age at the start of second language acquisition on the eventual proficiency attained in L2 under condition of naturalistic exposure and in advantaged environment all show strong effect for age- factor. To mention one of them, for example, Singleton (2001, p.82-83) reported census data on age of arrival and reported English proficiency of Chinese- speakers and Spanish-speakers who had resided in New York state for at least 10 years, that were analyzed by Bialystok and Hakuta (1999), showing that English proficiency declined as age of arrival increased. This report ensures that age-factor influences second language acquisition. Furthermore, by learning story about Genie, who was, for 13 years, deprived of language exposure and she was unable to use language when she was brought into care for the first time; and when she began learning language, although she could imitate sound to communicate, but her syntax remained very simple (Yule, 1996, p. 171), we can assume that critical period actually exists. Commenting on this case, Fromkin et al. (2007, p.54) state that Genie could not fully acquire the grammatical rules of English because she started learning language after the critical period. However, some may suspect that it is not because Genie has passed the critical period of learning language that makes her unable to master the grammatical rules fully, rather it is caused by other psychological reasons, like trauma or depression for example, that are caused by physical and social isolation she has received for 13 years.
Psychomotor development factors seem not in favor of adult second language acquisition either. The never attained native-like proficiency in pronunciation of second language is often regarded as the consequence of learning a new language after the speech muscles patterns for first language have already developed. Hoffman (1991, p. 38) states that a child is linguistically more adept with respect to the acquisition of phonological system. Resemble to the idea above, Flege (1999, p.125) describes alternative hypothesis that L2 pronunciation accuracy of adult language learners may decline not because they have lost the ability to learn to pronounce, but because they have learned to pronounce their first language so well. So, it is the disadvantages of learning second language after the first language is already established. However, Bongaerts’ (1999, p. 185) conclusion of his three studies of highly successful late language learners is that the pronunciation of some of these learners were consistently judged to be native-like or authentic by listeners who were native speakers of the language. This finding, Bongaert argues, proves that the claims concerning an absolute biological barrier to the attainment of native like accent in a foreign language are too strong and exaggerated. Nevertheless, some may argue that Bongaerts’ finding is only an exceptional because the research objects are those who are very talented. So, they can achieve native-like pronunciation accuracy level. Fromkin et al. (2007, p. 346) state that if adults can achieve native-like grammatical competence in second language, especially with respect to pronunciation, they are remarkable individuals. So, they are exceptional.
Cognitive and linguistic factors will also be to adult second language learners’ disadvantages. Newport (1990, 1991) as cited by Gass (2000, p. 42) explains that the failure of adults to achieve native-like competence in a second language is due to their greater cognitive maturity. Despite their mature cognitive that enable adults to propose complex ideas, they still have only very limited language to convey them. It makes them frustrated in learning a second language. Their already established first language also, to some extent, hinders their second language acquisition.
The grammatical errors made by adult second language learners are often caused by interference of their first language (Fromkin et al., 2007, p. 348).
The different environment where children acquire their first language and where adults acquire their second language make the easy process of acquisition in first language does not happen in acquisition of second language. Finegan (1994, p. 465) explains that children acquire their first language in a home and loving environment and the language learned is so context bound and this make them subconsciously acquire their first language. On the other hand, language learned by adults in the classroom is seldom context bound and, to make things worse, their milieu do not give them enough exposure to the target language.
The last but not the least factor that influences second language acquisition is the affective factor. Finnegan (1994, p. 465) mention that this factor does not come into play for children who learn their first language but for adults that have developed strong social identity this factor is crucial. Emmitt, Komesoff, and Pollock (2006, p. 190) maintain that the result of learning a second language is influenced by the learners’ attitude towards the target language.
Involving ourselves in discussion about an innate capacity to acquire first or second language is like involving ourselves in a parliament- debate. When one proposes an argument, the other will be ready to give a counter argument. However, reflecting to how we acquire our first language, we seem to agree to Slobin’s idea about the’ingrained capacity’ to acquire the first language. In acquiring our first language, we face no difficulties and we do it subconsciously. But, when we talk about second language acquisition, factors such as: age, critical period, learning environment, and interference of the first language come into consideration. Slobin’s ‘innate capacity’ seems not come into play here.
(Words: 2681)
Reading List
Bongaerts, T. (1999). Ultimate attainment in L2 pronunciation: The case of very advanced late L2 learners. In D. Birdsong (Ed.), Second language acquisition and the critical period hypothesis. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publisher.
Brown, H. D. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching. New York: Longman.
Chomskey, N. (2002). Language and the mind. In B. M. Power & R. S. Hubbard (Eds.), Language development: A reader for teachers. New Jersey: Merril Prentice Hall.
Ellis, R. (1997). Second language acquisition. oxford: Oxford University Press.
Emmitt, M., Komesaroff, L., & Pollock, J. (2006). Language & learning: An introduction for teaching (4th ed.). Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
Finegan, E. (1994). Language: its structure and use (2nd ed.). Florida: Harcourt Brace College Publisher.
Flege, J. E. (1999). Age of learning and second language speech. In D. Birdsong (Ed.), Second language acquisition and the critical period hypothesis. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publisher.
Foster-Cohen, S. (2001). First language acquisition ... second language acquisition: 'what's Hecuba to him or he to Hecuba'. Second Language Research, 17(4), pp.329-344.
Fromkin, V., Rodman, R., & Hyams, N. (2007). An introduction to language (8th ed.). Boston: Thomson Wadsworth.
Gass, S. (2000). Fundamental of second language acquisition. In J. W. Rosenthal (Ed.), Handbook of undergraduate second language education. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publisher.
Gregg, K. R. (2003). The state of emergentism in second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 19(2), 95-128.
Hamer, J. F., & Blanc, M. H. A. (2000). Bilinguality and bilingualism (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Hoffman, C. (1991). An introduction to bilingualism. London: Longman Linguistic Library.
McLaughlin, B. (1992). Myths and misconceptions about second language learning: what every teacher needs to unlearn [Electronic Version]. Educational practice report: 5. Retrieved 7/24/2006 from http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/pubs/ncrcdsll/epr5.htm.
Patkowski, M. S. (1990). Age and accent in a second language: a reply to James Emil Flege. Applied Linguistic, 11(1).
Singleton, D. (2001). Age and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 21, 77-89.
Yule, G. (1996). The study of language (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dan Slobin, The Human Language Series,
Program Two, 1994
The existence of innate capacity to learn a first language is continuously debated. There has been plethora of research in child first language acquisition in the last half-century and the results were often in conflict. Some research support the idea of the existence of innate capacity to a first language acquisition while some others challenge it. Slobin’s statement quoted above also concerns with the way children acquire their first language. This essay will critically discuss this statement. After showing what Slobin means by this statement, it will then explore some experts’ ideas about it- whether they are in favour of it or challenge it. This essay, then, discusses to what extent Slobin’s statement above match up with three main perspectives of first language acquisition: behaviorist approach, nativist approach and functional approach. The next part of the essay discusses whether the capacity to learn language mentioned by Slobin is also available for the learning of second language. The term second language used in this essay refers to language other than the learners’ mother tongue (Ellis, 1997, p. 3). There are a number of ways to approach this issue, for example, by comparing characteristics of child’s first language acquisition to characteristics of child’s second language acquisition or by comparing the child’s first language acquisition to adult’s second language acquisition. This essay deals with the second one, that is, look at whether the ‘ingrained capacity’ Slobin refers to is also available for adults in learning second language. The term ‘adult’ in this essay refers to the age after puberty. The choice of this kind of comparison is based on the fact that most students in non- English speaking country like Indonesia start learning English as a second or a foreign language in junior high school (grade 7). Foster- Cohen (2001, p. 336) argues that there are some differences in language acquisition in relation to the age and the most obvious difference is when children come at puberty that is what Lenneberg regarded as the ‘cut off’ for a critical period for second language acquisition. Although it seems illogical to make comparison of child first language acquisition to adult second language acquisition because it will not only compare first and second language learning situation but also compare children and adults at the same time, however, it is a common and important comparison (Brown, 2000, p. 52). It is my contention that the ‘ingrained capacity’ to learn the first language is not available for adults in learning their second language.
There are many characteristics of children’s first language acquisition we can infer from Slobin’s statement above. Firstly, by saying that ‘the capacity to learn languages is deeply ingrained in us as a species’, Slobin seems to suggest that as human being we have an innate capacity to acquire a language and, therefore, secondly, it seems that children find no difficulties in acquiring it. It is just as easy as to be able to walk or to recognize their father’s or mother’s faces. And, the last, Slobin seems to suggest that children do these all subconsciously. As in case of talking, no parents tell their children explicitly to keep their balance so that they can walk, neither do they tell details of their father’s and mother’s faces so that they can recognize them. Children are just able to do so.
Some linguists and experts in language learning share Slobin’s view about the ‘ingrained capacity’ to learn the first language while some others doubt it. Yule (1996, p.175) states that the fact that all children, regardless their background or origin, can acquire their first language in relatively short period of time and without explicit instruction has led to believe that there is an innate capacity to acquire the first language. In line with Yule, Fromkin, Rodman, and Hyams (2007, p.314) tells us about the remarkable feat of children who can make sentences with complex grammar despite their very young age. They suggest that children seem to have already had theory of language with them. Living in a normal environment, children can acquire their first language naturally and without any significant difficulty (Brown, 2000, p.20) because language is a kind of latent structure that already exist in children’s mind and will developed when getting linguistic exposure (Chomsky, 2002, p. 37). However, there are many experts that try to explain children’s first language acquisition without taking innate capacity issue into account. Greg (2003, p.95), for example, tells about emergentism that is an approach to cognition that denies the existence of inborn capacity in language acquisition and claims that simple learning mechanisms are sufficient to bring about the emergence of complex language representation.
Now, this essay will have a look at three main perspectives of first language acquisition: behaviorist, nativist and functional approach and, then, examine whether their ideas coincide with Slobin’s concept of innate capacity in language learning.
First, this essay will examine behavioristic approach in the first language acquisition. Behaviorists believe that children come to the world without pre-determined capacity, they come to the world with tabula rasa, that is a clean slate bearing no preconceived idea about the world as well as about language (Brown, 2000, p. 22) and this is the environment that has significant influence in children’s development. Behaviorists regard language behavior as part of general human behavior and, therefore, can be explained in ‘stimulus- response- reinforcement’ mechanism. They claim that language learning for children is a matter of forming habit through imitation of correct language models (Ellis, 1997, p.31). From this explanation we can assume that behaviorists are only interested in the observable aspects of language acquisition and seem to deny the existence of an innate capacity to learn language as described by Slobin. Ellis (1997, p. 32) states that, when discussing about how children acquire their first language, behaviorists emphasize only what can be directly observed and disregard what goes on in the children’s mind or the innate capacity the children have.
The second perspective of first language acquisition is nativist approach. This perspective emerges as an alternative view of first language acquisition and as an answer of some inadequate explanations about child’s first language acquisition of behaviorist approach. Nativists claim that human language can not be analyzed merely in terms of observable stimuli and response as done by behaviorists (Brown, 2000, p. 9). The fact that children can utter sentences they have never heard before and they can intuitively determine which sentences are possible and which are not arouses curiosity of the underlying phenomenon. Given the facts that children are able to master their mother tongue in relatively short time despite the complexity of the grammar, Chomskey (1965) as cited by Brown (2000, p. 24) maintains the existence of the innate capacity to learn first language. The nativists’ belief that human mind is equipped with innate capacity to learn language- that usually refers to as Language Acquisition Devices (LAD) and in later development refined into Universal Grammar (UG)- seems resemble Slobin’s concept of ingrained capacity to learn language. Finegan (1994, p. 448) adds that this talent (ingrained capacity) is not the privilege of the genius only, meaning that all children regardless their backgrounds and place of origin are gifted with this capacity and it does coincide with Slobin’s view above.
The third perspective of first language learning is functional approach. This perspective is seen as the development of the previous approach and emphasizes more on the function that the language performed rather than on its grammar as in nativist framework (Brown, 2000, p.27). Constructivists, like Piaget, see language development as result of children interaction with their environment (Brown, 2000, p. 28). Although this perspective gives less attention to innateness issue, however, it still considers the influence on innate factor in children’s language development. Slobin (1986) as cited by Brown (2000, p. 29) explains that the speed of language development on functional level is influenced by conceptual and communicative capacities operating in conjunction with innate schemas of cognition, and in formal level is influenced by perceptual and information processing capacities operating in conjunction with innate schema of grammar.
Now, we come to the second part of this essay. In this part, this essay will discuss whether the ‘ingrained capacity’ to learn a first language is also available for learning a second language. This essay will focus on adult second language acquisition for learners usually start to learn their second language when they are in junior high school (grade 7), it means when they have come to puberty. In dealing with this issue, this essay will analyze some factors that influence second language acquisition such as: age, psychomotor development, cognitive factor, linguistic factor, environment factor, and affective factor. It is my contention, then, that the innate capacity to learn languages is not available for adults learning their second language.
The ease with which children acquire their first language as described by Slobin above will not be experienced by adults who learn a second language due to age- related factors. Hamer and Blanc (2000, p.65) state that language learn in early years of age are generally mastered with native-like proficiency, whereas language learned in later years of age are rarely attained in native-like proficiency. The critical period hypothesis is an issue that is usually taken into account when discussing adult second language acquisition. This period was supposed to last from the second year of age to puberty. The critical period hypothesis maintained that children are superior to adults in learning second languages because their brains are more flexible (Lenneberg, 1967; Penfield & Roberts, 1959 as cited by McLaughin, 1992). The young language learners can learn languages easily because their cortex is more plastic than that of older learners and this hypothesis also implies that all language acquisition beyond the critical period will not be as better as children’s acquisition. However, Hamer and Blanc (2000, p. 75) criticize that this hypothesis is not supported by strong empirical evidences. Most of this theory is derived from clinical data obtained from feral, hearing-impaired and linguistically isolated children, so this may not be a good basis for a sensitive period.
Outside of critical period hypothesis, however, there are many studies that support the important of age- factor in second language acquisition. Patkowski (1990, p.85) states that many studies that examine the effect of age at the start of second language acquisition on the eventual proficiency attained in L2 under condition of naturalistic exposure and in advantaged environment all show strong effect for age- factor. To mention one of them, for example, Singleton (2001, p.82-83) reported census data on age of arrival and reported English proficiency of Chinese- speakers and Spanish-speakers who had resided in New York state for at least 10 years, that were analyzed by Bialystok and Hakuta (1999), showing that English proficiency declined as age of arrival increased. This report ensures that age-factor influences second language acquisition. Furthermore, by learning story about Genie, who was, for 13 years, deprived of language exposure and she was unable to use language when she was brought into care for the first time; and when she began learning language, although she could imitate sound to communicate, but her syntax remained very simple (Yule, 1996, p. 171), we can assume that critical period actually exists. Commenting on this case, Fromkin et al. (2007, p.54) state that Genie could not fully acquire the grammatical rules of English because she started learning language after the critical period. However, some may suspect that it is not because Genie has passed the critical period of learning language that makes her unable to master the grammatical rules fully, rather it is caused by other psychological reasons, like trauma or depression for example, that are caused by physical and social isolation she has received for 13 years.
Psychomotor development factors seem not in favor of adult second language acquisition either. The never attained native-like proficiency in pronunciation of second language is often regarded as the consequence of learning a new language after the speech muscles patterns for first language have already developed. Hoffman (1991, p. 38) states that a child is linguistically more adept with respect to the acquisition of phonological system. Resemble to the idea above, Flege (1999, p.125) describes alternative hypothesis that L2 pronunciation accuracy of adult language learners may decline not because they have lost the ability to learn to pronounce, but because they have learned to pronounce their first language so well. So, it is the disadvantages of learning second language after the first language is already established. However, Bongaerts’ (1999, p. 185) conclusion of his three studies of highly successful late language learners is that the pronunciation of some of these learners were consistently judged to be native-like or authentic by listeners who were native speakers of the language. This finding, Bongaert argues, proves that the claims concerning an absolute biological barrier to the attainment of native like accent in a foreign language are too strong and exaggerated. Nevertheless, some may argue that Bongaerts’ finding is only an exceptional because the research objects are those who are very talented. So, they can achieve native-like pronunciation accuracy level. Fromkin et al. (2007, p. 346) state that if adults can achieve native-like grammatical competence in second language, especially with respect to pronunciation, they are remarkable individuals. So, they are exceptional.
Cognitive and linguistic factors will also be to adult second language learners’ disadvantages. Newport (1990, 1991) as cited by Gass (2000, p. 42) explains that the failure of adults to achieve native-like competence in a second language is due to their greater cognitive maturity. Despite their mature cognitive that enable adults to propose complex ideas, they still have only very limited language to convey them. It makes them frustrated in learning a second language. Their already established first language also, to some extent, hinders their second language acquisition.
The grammatical errors made by adult second language learners are often caused by interference of their first language (Fromkin et al., 2007, p. 348).
The different environment where children acquire their first language and where adults acquire their second language make the easy process of acquisition in first language does not happen in acquisition of second language. Finegan (1994, p. 465) explains that children acquire their first language in a home and loving environment and the language learned is so context bound and this make them subconsciously acquire their first language. On the other hand, language learned by adults in the classroom is seldom context bound and, to make things worse, their milieu do not give them enough exposure to the target language.
The last but not the least factor that influences second language acquisition is the affective factor. Finnegan (1994, p. 465) mention that this factor does not come into play for children who learn their first language but for adults that have developed strong social identity this factor is crucial. Emmitt, Komesoff, and Pollock (2006, p. 190) maintain that the result of learning a second language is influenced by the learners’ attitude towards the target language.
Involving ourselves in discussion about an innate capacity to acquire first or second language is like involving ourselves in a parliament- debate. When one proposes an argument, the other will be ready to give a counter argument. However, reflecting to how we acquire our first language, we seem to agree to Slobin’s idea about the’ingrained capacity’ to acquire the first language. In acquiring our first language, we face no difficulties and we do it subconsciously. But, when we talk about second language acquisition, factors such as: age, critical period, learning environment, and interference of the first language come into consideration. Slobin’s ‘innate capacity’ seems not come into play here.
(Words: 2681)
Reading List
Bongaerts, T. (1999). Ultimate attainment in L2 pronunciation: The case of very advanced late L2 learners. In D. Birdsong (Ed.), Second language acquisition and the critical period hypothesis. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publisher.
Brown, H. D. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching. New York: Longman.
Chomskey, N. (2002). Language and the mind. In B. M. Power & R. S. Hubbard (Eds.), Language development: A reader for teachers. New Jersey: Merril Prentice Hall.
Ellis, R. (1997). Second language acquisition. oxford: Oxford University Press.
Emmitt, M., Komesaroff, L., & Pollock, J. (2006). Language & learning: An introduction for teaching (4th ed.). Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
Finegan, E. (1994). Language: its structure and use (2nd ed.). Florida: Harcourt Brace College Publisher.
Flege, J. E. (1999). Age of learning and second language speech. In D. Birdsong (Ed.), Second language acquisition and the critical period hypothesis. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publisher.
Foster-Cohen, S. (2001). First language acquisition ... second language acquisition: 'what's Hecuba to him or he to Hecuba'. Second Language Research, 17(4), pp.329-344.
Fromkin, V., Rodman, R., & Hyams, N. (2007). An introduction to language (8th ed.). Boston: Thomson Wadsworth.
Gass, S. (2000). Fundamental of second language acquisition. In J. W. Rosenthal (Ed.), Handbook of undergraduate second language education. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publisher.
Gregg, K. R. (2003). The state of emergentism in second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 19(2), 95-128.
Hamer, J. F., & Blanc, M. H. A. (2000). Bilinguality and bilingualism (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Hoffman, C. (1991). An introduction to bilingualism. London: Longman Linguistic Library.
McLaughlin, B. (1992). Myths and misconceptions about second language learning: what every teacher needs to unlearn [Electronic Version]. Educational practice report: 5. Retrieved 7/24/2006 from http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/pubs/ncrcdsll/epr5.htm.
Patkowski, M. S. (1990). Age and accent in a second language: a reply to James Emil Flege. Applied Linguistic, 11(1).
Singleton, D. (2001). Age and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 21, 77-89.
Yule, G. (1996). The study of language (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Join us for better English teaching
Hi all,
I invite you all: teachers, students, and whoever that are intersted in teaching English as a second or foreign language to share ideas, experience, and whatever to develop our expertise in teaching English as a second or foreign language. You can send your ideas about teaching a certain grammar point or propose your ideas to develop your students speaking skills, for example. Or, you may be more interested in discussing the theoritical framework of a certain technique or method you use with your students in class, this blog will be the right place. So, feel free to join me in this blog and I hope we can reap benefits from it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Mendidik Anak Bangsa di Luar Negeri
Terhitung sejak tahun lalu, saya mendapatkan amanah untuk menjadi kepala sekolah di Sekolah Indonesia Riyadh (SIR), sekolah kedutaan di ...
