Today we’re continuing our look at Bill VanPatten’s third Principle of Contemporary/Communicative Language Teaching in the book While We’re on the Topic (ACTFL, 2017).
Before we continue, let’s review what we saw last time.
VanPatten states that language acquisition has the following characteristics because of internal and external factors:
– It is slow
– It is piecemeal (i.e. occurs in bits and pieces)
– It is stage-like (i.e. is ordered and sequenced independently of instruction and other factors)
– Instruction does not significantly affect the first three characteristics, although the right kind of instruction might accelerate the speed of acquisition but not the order
– We create mental representation that we couldn’t learn from the environment
– Some kind of non-nativeness seems to be the norm
In other words, “learners do not willy-nilly create linguistic systems in their heads in unique individual ways” (i.e. learners evidence repeated patterns of development and universal tendencies in a linguistic system’s growth) and “instruction doesn’t override or circumvent these tendencies and developmental trajectories” (i.e. acquisition seems to be impervious to direct attempts to make it happen differently). (VanPatten 2017, p. 43)
Internal Factors
From the above two observations, VanPatten concludes that “… something is compelling [constraining] acquisition toward a particular course of action.” (2017, 43)
What is this “something” that constrains acquisition even to the point of developing knowledge of ungrammaticality and impossibility even in the absence of explicit knowledge about such things?
This “something” is not motivation, individual differences in learning rates, or aptitude – or even a combination of the three.
VanPatten believes the “something” is Universal Grammar (UG), a concept made popular by Noam Chomsky. Briefly, the theory of UG (and modularity) states
– Language is unique to human beings and the result of genetic disposition
– Language has universal properties that all human languages must obey
– Languages are limited to those properties provided by UG
– There is a language “module” [also called “Language Acquisition Device”] in the human mind, i.e. the properties of languages are unique to language and the system that processes language, which is different from all other cognitive systems.
To be sure, the idea of UG is controversial, and many researchers and theorists argue that it does not actually exist. However, no matter what we call it, people recognize that psychological factors constrain acquisition of language.
VanPatten acknowledges that not all aspects of language acquisition can be explained by UG. Some aspects of language are acquired through general learning mechanisms. (Others would claim that all acquisition is explained by general learning mechanisms.) Thus, he has what might be called a “weak position” on UG.
One of the general learning mechanisms that contribute to language acquisition is what VanPatten calls the “frequency tabulator”. In other words, the more often we encounter a language feature (word, phrase, form, etc.) the more robustly it will be represented in our mind/brain. This helps explain why certain verb forms are acquired before others, as one example.
One take-away from this is the importance of repetition in instruction. The debate comes in the best way to achieve meaningful repetition, but that is an entirely different conversation.
Before proceeding to a discussion of External Factors that constrain language acquisition, VanPatten includes an excursus on the First Language.
He notes that many people are concerned about interference from the first language on acquisition of subsequent languages. VanPatten’s conclusion? There isn’t much we can do about it; it simply is what it is. Some students will have greater difficulty than others because of this interference, but the interference itself in no way changes the internal constraints on acquisition.
In addition, there is a great deal of misunderstanding about what is called the critical period. According to some, once we have reached a certain age (ill defined as it may be), the mechanisms we used to acquire our first language are no longer available to us, and so we must use a different set of mechanisms to learn subsequent languages. [Note: This is often used as a justification for following a grammar syllabus.]
To this assertion, I can only say: Poppycock!
VanPatten is less blunt in his refutation of the idea that our mechanism of acquisition changes, but he still maintains that we acquire second and subsequent languages the same way we acquired our first language. As VanPatten notes, the idea of the critical period “has lost much support over the years” – and for good reason. “In fact, the evidence is overwhelming that second language learners’ mental representation is guided and constrained as in first language acquisition, and by the same mechanisms.” (2017, p. 48)
For anyone wishing to look further into the role of the “mother tongue” in language instruction, I suggest reading Wolfgang Butzkamm’s “We only learn language once“.
To conclude today’s post, I quote VanPatten’s statement about the power of Internal Factors on language acquisition. (Come back next week for External Factors.)
In sum, internal to the learner and not under the control of external forces are language-related and learning-related factors the guide and constrain the progress of development. The learner’s language looks the way it does at particular times during acquisition for a reason. It’s not because learners are lazy, haven’t memorized something, or haven’t had enough “practice.” It’s because powerful internal forces are at work to process, organize and store the “data” that learners are exposed to.