This week I answered a question on Quora and am sharing it with my readers here.
Language acquisition and language learning are used in similarly [sic] senses. However they are not the same, right? But how are they different?
First, let’s make a distinction between general usage and technical usage. Most people who are not linguists, second language acquisition researchers, or individuals otherwise involved in a technical discussion of language are most often inexact in their usage of terms and will use terms such as “learning” and “acquisition” interchangeably when they are different things. So, the context and intent of the writer have an affect on terminology.
When a researcher or other expert is speaking or writing in a technical setting, that person will (or should) be meticulous in differentiating learning and acquisition.
This distinction is an essential part of the Second Language Acquisition Hypothesis promulgated by Dr. Stephen Krashen, USC professor emeritus. This Hypothesis consists of five different hypotheses or postulates:
- The Acquisition vs Learning Hypothesis
- The Monitor Hypothesis
- The Input Hypothesis
- The Natural Order Hypothesis
- The Affective Filter Hypothesis
Since the Acquisition-Learning distinction is the first hypothesis, we can begin there in understanding the Second Language Acquisition Hypothesis.
The Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis maintains that there are two different “knowledge and memory systems” by which at least some degree of language competency may be reached: the acquisition system and the learning system.
The acquisition system is the way that children learn their first language. No one explains the language to a child until after the child has already acquired and used it. This system is unconscious, implicit, informal, and natural. It is what may also be termed “procedural knowledge and memory”. That knowledge is implicit and abstract. Acquirers are not aware that they are acquiring but are concentrating using the language for communication, i.e. expressing, understanding, and occasionally negotiating meaning with a purpose in a given context.
Unconscious, implicit knowledge of how to perform a task is procedural knowledge.
The learning system is the way that we traditionally acquire knowledge in the school setting. It is conscious, formal, explicit, and entails knowing the “rules of the language” (e.g. grammar and syntax), being aware of the rules when engaging in the language, and being able to talk about them. Learners are very aware that they are learning and concentrate not on communication but on memorization of words and phrases, application of rules. Communication should become possible once the learner has developed sufficient ability and honed the skills of the language, generally defined as listening, speaking, reading, writing, “grammar”, and culture. “Grammar” includes syntax, morphology, phonology, and many other aspects of language beyond what the textbook presents as the “rules of grammar”. Knowledge gained through the learning system is also referred to as “propositional knowledge (and memory)”.
Explicit learning about language is propositional knowledge.
For Dr. Krashen’s explanation of this part of his Second Language Acquisition Hypothesis, anyone who is interested can begin with his book from 1982 “Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition”, which can be found here –
http://www.sdkrashen.com/content…
Another contemporary second language acquisition researcher, Bill VanPatten, professor at Michigan State University, reinforces this distinction, although he uses different terminology and emphasizes the dual aspects of Mental Representation and Communicative Ability. A good place to start is his article in The Language Educator magazine, “Creating Comprehensible Input and Output”:
https://www.actfl.org/sites/defa…
Current brain research indicates that the distinction between procedural/personal knowledge (which is implicit, unconscious, and abstract) and propositional knowledge (which is explicit, conscious, and concrete) is very real and handled by two different systems within the brain. Furthermore, there seems to be little or no transference from one system to the other. In other words, propositional knowledge about a language (e.g. rules of grammar) cannot become procedural knowledge that informs constructing sentences correctly. Furthermore, according to VanPatten, “… what’s on page 32 of the textbook doesn’t wind up in learners’ minds/brains.” (VanPatten, “While We’re on the Topic”, p. 32)
“What’s on page 32 of the textbook doesn’t wind up in learners’ minds/brains”
A key issue in second language acquisition is whether or not adults acquire language in the same way, i.e. using the same knowledge and memory system, as children. If the mechanism or system and pathway are the same, then essentially the same external strategies, procedures, techniques, etc. should be used in second language instruction – of course, making allowances for differences in age, cognitive development, emotional development, background knowledge, affective factors such as socialization, etc.
When a language has been acquired, the acquirer is able to use it with confidence and little or no hesitation in spontaneous speech and writing while concentrating on communication (the expression, interpretation, and occasionally negotiation of meaning with a purpose in a give context). Language competence or proficiency will be high and depend on the person’s “feel” for the language. The mental representation of the language will be abstract, implicit, and complex. The key elements for acquisition are amount of exposure to understandable (and understood) language and attitude rather than language “aptitude”. After all, anyone who is looking at learning a second language has already learned a first language, so sufficient aptitude already exists.
When a language has been learned, the learner’s confidence, fluency, and spontaneity will be dependent on how quickly the person is able to become conscious of and apply the rules of the language. This is usually what people mean when they talk about “language aptitude”.
Few (but some) people develop even a moderate degree of proficiency through learning, and many people report the frustration of consciously working through the rules to formulate a response only to have the conversation move far beyond the point at which the comment would be at all appropriate to communication. By the time the learner has thought through subject-verb (person, number, tense, formality) agreement, noun-adjective (gender, number, case) agreement, word order, and any other applicable rules – after deciding which rules are applicable – the opportunity to contribute to the conversation is long gone. Consequently, little communication takes place, and the language learner misses out on a great deal of the conversation.
Formulating a response through learned rules only to have the conversation move on before being able to reply is frustrating.
In his recent book “While We’re on the Topic”, Dr. Bill VanPatten notes, “… scholars are converging on the idea that most if not all of language acquisition is implicit in nature.” (P. 40) That is simply another way of saying that we don’t acquire a language through explicit learning. Once again, we are confronted with the learning-acquisition distinction.
Briefly, the other parts of the Comprehensible Input Hypothesis postulate the following:
Monitor Hypothesis: Learning has its place, but this is primarily an “editing” function and is useful (and usable) only under limited circumstances, such as when writing a paper with time to review, think of rules, and consciously apply them. Of course, it’s also necessary to know the rules, which may or may not be helpful in the situation. (Just think about the famous spelling rule, “i before e except after c”. I think we should seize the opportunity to either forfeit this weird and foreign albeit ancient rule or deign to proclaim a surfeit of feigned obeisance to what is the height of absurdity. We should make a seismic shift, not engage in sleight of hand or feint, but be feisty and keep perpetrators of this freighted practice under surveillance. (See what I did there? The previous two sentences are full of “exceptions” to the rule. The addendum “or when pronounced like a as in neighbor and weigh” is merely a stopgap measure intended to salvage a rule that doesn’t hold water; it’s like a seine and not a weir.) “… what’s on page 32 of the textbook doesn’t wind up in the learners’ mind/brain.”
Contrary to popular opinion, Dr. Krashen does not reject the value of learning in language proficiency, he simply circumscribes it and shows that its usefulness is constrained.
Explicit learning has its place; it’s just a small one.
Input Hypothesis: Acquisition of a language is possible only in the presence of Comprehensible Input, i.e. messages in the target language that the acquirer can understand at the level that Krashen presents as i +1. That is, the message is understandable but slightly beyond the ability of the acquirer to produce. Krashen and others consider Comprehensible Input to be the sole sufficient cause of language acquisition – provided, of course, that the mental capacity of the person is sufficient to process the input. Someone who has failed to learn a first language will likely not be capable of learning a second language. (It’s sort of like heredity: If your parents didn’t have any children, chances are good that you won’t either.) Some researchers and theorists believe that some form of output is also necessary for acquisition, but all researchers agree that the single most important element in language acquisition (first, second, third, or more) is comprehensible input.
As VanPatten phrases it,
“… learners get language in their heads through interaction with the language in communicative contexts …”
Natural Order Hypothesis: Each language is acquired in a certain order with only minor, if any, variations in that order. We know at least the broad outline of that order for English (where most of the research has taken place) and can state that seemingly simple elements, such as the addition of -s for third person singular verbs, are late acquired. In fact, items that we tend to think of as “more advanced” are acquired before this seemingly simple rule. VanPatten notes that the developmental sequence of verbal morphemes for both first and second language learners follows the same order: progressive -ing is acquired before past tense -ed, which is acquired before third person -s. (P. 38) Of course, the textbook rule can be learned and applied when the learner is conscious of it and has time to apply it, but in spontaneous, rapid communication the feature will disappear unless it has been acquired.
“That the acquisition of language is ordered and sequenced independently of instruction and other factors is one of the best-kept secret in language teaching.” (Van Patten, 2017, 39)
Affective Filter Hypothesis: Both external and internal factors, such as social setting, physical setting, comfort, mental alertness, degree of anxiousness, and attitude toward the language, affect the comprehensibility of the input. The teacher should support and promote factors that enhance understanding of and openness to the input while minimizing and removing factors that interfere with the ability to hear/read and understand the messages.
“… input is better when someone is talking with a learner, not at a learner.” (Van Patten, 2017, 51)
That’s because talking with someone does a number of things, including lowering the affective filter.
“Language is too abstract and complex to be taught and learned explicitly.” (Van Patten, 2017, 52)
What do you consider the implications of that statement for classroom instruction?