PEC 1 ANÁLISIS PSICOLINGÜÍSTICO DE LA ADQUISICIÓN DEL INGLÉS

REFLECTIONS ON LIGHTBOWN AND SPADA’S HOW LANGUAGES ARE LEARNED

This essay will discuss several questions related to second language learning and teaching. Specifically,
it will focus on the new ideas I have developed as a result of reading Lightbown and Spada´s (2013)
book How languages are Learned.

Languages are learned mainly through imitation

I have always been aware of the fact that imitation, while important, is not the only factor that
determines language learning. In this regard, the idea that children acquire language through imitation
only, based on the behaviorist perspective, is not a fully satisfactory explanation for the process of
language acquisition. On the one hand, some children imitate more than others. On the other, children
do not simply imitate whatever is available in their environment, but rather imitate selectively, that
is, they appropriate and transform what they hear in order to adapt it to new contexts and new
situations. It is in this regard that language acquisition must not be solely regarded as a process of
imitation, but also as a creative one.

Parents usually correct young children when they make grammatical errors

Reading this book has taught me that the practice of parents correcting young children when they
make grammatical errors is by no means universal but is often determined by cultural, socio-economic
and educational factors, as well as by the age of the children. For example, while this phenomenon
may occur frequently in middle class European or North American families, in other societies, parents
do not usually engage in conversation with their children, or children interact more frequently with
siblings or peers and therefore do not have opportunities to interact and be corrected by parents
(Lightbown & Spada, 2013). Parents from lower socio-economic backgrounds, on the other hand, may
have less linguistic and metalinguistic awareness, a fact that may also determine the degree to which
they correct their children´s errors.

People with high IQs are good language learners

The most important factor in second language acquisition success is motivation

I have always been aware that motivation or intelligence are not the only determinants of successful
language learning, but this book has helped me refine this idea. Motivation or intelligence are broad,
non-clearly observable attributes that may refer to a large number of behaviors and variables, and for
this reason it is very difficult to determine whether we can establish a correlation between these
attributes and successful language learning. With regard to motivation, for example, many questions
arise: how do we define motivation exactly? How do we distinguish whether it is motivation that leads
to successful learning or successful learning that leads to motivation? With regard to intelligence,
some studies have demonstrated that a high IQ often correlates with strong metalinguistic
capabilities, but not with communicative ability (Genesee, 1976). Is it then accurate to say that
individuals with a high IQ are good language learners? Moreover, there are a large number of factors
that influence successful learning and that may often intersect, mitigate or reinforce the influence of
motivation and intelligence on language acquisition. In some cases, for example, individuals may be
highly motivated to learn but have no access, due to social or economic constraints, to opportunities
for meaningful communication with peers (Norton & Toohey, 2001). This could be the case of socially
marginalized groups. Motivation, on the other hand, is not static and unchangeable and may fluctuate
over time. For all these reasons, rather than trying to determine how much different attributes and
characteristics, such as motivation and intelligence, influence successful learning, it would be much
more effective to focus on designing teaching strategies to meet the multiple and changing
characteristics of different learner profiles.

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

My initial perception was that the earlier a foreign language was introduced in school, the greater the
likelihood of success in learning. However, after reading the book, I have realized that the decision of
when to introduce second language learning cannot be the based on age only, but should also take
into account many other factors, in particular the goals of second language acquisition and the social
context in which language learning takes place (Lightbown, 2008).

The Critical Period Hypothesis suggests there is a time (around puberty, although some studies suggest
it could be even earlier) after which a learner will no longer be capable of attaining native-like
proficiency. From this perspective, the earlier a language is introduced, the better.

However, in many European countries, a second language is only taught in the school classroom for a
couple hours a week, with no possibility of real immersion in the language. In these contexts, the
acquisition of native-like proficiency in the foreign language is neither desirable nor a realistic goal, no
matter how early the language is introduced. Research has shown that in these settings, an early start
is not always an advantage. In fact, learners who start later often catch up with those who start earlier,
because they are able to successfully apply their analytic skills and metalinguistic ability (that a
younger learner has not yet acquired) to the purpose of language acquisition, and because the earlier
starters do not have a sufficient level of immersion to learn the language intuitively (Lightbown and
Spada, 2013).

For these reasons, when the goal of the second language learning program is to acquire functional
communication in everyday situations, and not native proficiency, I agree with the book that it may
be more desirable to introduce the language at an older age, especially since evidence supports the
idea that high levels of language competence can also be achieved when the language is introduced
at a later stage.

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

The book has taught me that not all errors made by second language learners can be explained in
terms of interference from their first language, but rather in terms of learners´ developing knowledge
of the structure of the language they are learning, also called “interlanguage” (Selinker, 1972). This
means that, while some errors are the result of first language interference, others can be attributed
to a process of gradual adjustment to the rules and principles of the new language. Thus, for example,
when learners begin using the -ed ending for irregular past tenses in English, they may overgeneralize
and use this ending on irregular verbs. Similarly, many studies agree on difficulty to determine the
exact source of errors, as many factors, such as previous languages learnt or characteristics of first
and second language, mingle and intersect.

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

This book has helped me understand the contrast between a linear and more integrated grammar
teaching approach. The traditional view that teachers should present grammatical rules one at a time,
and learners should practice and master this particular grammatical aspect of the language before
moving on to another one presupposes that language learning follows a linear process (Nunan, 1998).
However, linguistic progress fluctuates. For example, when the present perfect is introduced, it is likely
that learners might experience confusion and doubts as to how to use the simple past (which was
introduced previously). Their mastery in the use of the simple past will decrease temporarily as a result
of the interference of a new grammatical aspect in the learning process. In this regard, Nunan (1998)
has pointed out that linguistic progress “is determined by a complex interplay of factors related to
speech processing constraints, pedagogical interventions, acquisitional processes and the influence of
the discoursal environment in which the items occur” (p.102). Most importantly, introducing
grammatical items following a linear pattern does not help students improve their communication
abilities because, in real life, the grammatical aspects of a language are mingled and interspersed in a
text or conversation. It would be more useful to teach grammar in a communicative context in order
to give students the opportunity to appreciate the connection between form and meaning (Nunan,
1998), or, in other words, to learn not only how to use grammar but also when it is appropriate to use
it.

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

I have always believed that the amount of correction provided by a teacher should be adjusted to
specific contexts and situations, and this book has helped me refine this view. In this regard, a large
amount of error correction on the part of teacher often results into much emphasis on the formal
aspects of the language, and this constant interference will not allow students to freely express
themselves, as well as undermine their motivation to learn the language. The communicative
approach, which proposed limited error correction and emphasis on meaning over form, emerged
partly as a reaction to this. However, it seems that too much emphasis on fluency might also have
negative consequences, as it would lead to students persisting in making the same mistakes. It would
seem that the issue is not only whether or not to provide corrective feedback, but also what type of
correction and how it is provided, and to adjust this corrective feedback to the characteristics of our
learner. In this regard, correction can come in many forms (explicit correction, recasts, metalinguistic
feedback…) and research has demonstrated that the type of correction provided matters. Some
studies have claimed that students are more likely to react positively to feedback that prompts self-
correction than to teacher providing the correct form (Lyster, 2004). Moreover, different learners may
also react differently to correction. Advanced learners whose goal is to master the language, for
example, may need and appreciate feedback more than learners who study a language for everyday
communication purposes. Therefore, rather than asking the question of whether to correct errors or
not, teachers should reflect and carefully evaluate when, how much, and what type of feedback is
needed in different contexts.
Teachers should use materials that expose students only to those language structures which have
already been taught.

This book has confirmed my opinion that, in natural communication environments, learners are
exposed to a great variety of structures and uses of the language. This situation will present linguistic
challenges and as a result encourage them to device new strategies in order to develop understanding.
Exposing students only to language structures that they already know will hinder their ability to adapt
and develop understanding strategies in authentic and real-life communication environments. It will
develop a more passive learning attitude instead of developing their personal involvement with their
own learning as well as an active quest for meaning. Finally, it will also decrease their motivation to
learning (as most of the material will be already known).

When learners are allowed to interact freely (for example in group or pair activities), they learn each
other’s mistakes.

I have always believed that class activities that involve pair or group work will result in a large amount
of student-student interaction but also in situations where learners are more easily exposed to one
another´s mistakes. However, this book has helped me understand that pair or group work does not
necessarily lead to situations where students copy each other´s mistakes (Long & Porter, 1985). In this
regard, compared to a more traditional teaching model, where the teacher delivers a lecture, pair and
group activities significantly increase the amount of time that students can actively produce and
interact with the language. Through sustained dialogue and exchange with each other, students will
have countless opportunities to provide and ask for clarifications, to elaborate on their ideas using the
second language and to negotiate meaning. This ongoing process of meaning negotiation is essential
for progress in language acquisition (Long & Porter, 1985).

Students learn what they are taught.

Ideally, students would always learn what they are taught, but this is not always the case. This will
greatly depend on the effectiveness of the teaching strategies and activities designed by the teacher
as well as on the teacher´s ability to develop students´ motivation. On the other hand, there are many
factors that determine what students learn and that are not dependent on the teacher or on what is
taught. First, learners can learn independently. Research has demonstrated that language exposure
with no formal teaching can also advance foreign language learning (Lightbown & Spada, 2013).
Research has also found that language learning also develops along a predictable developmental path
(Lightbown & Spada, 2013), and this is one of the main new insights that this book has provided in
relation to this question. According to this idea, students will only learn or truly interiorize what they
are developmentally ready to learn, and attempts to teach more complex structures will not have
positive results. For all these reasons, “what students are taught” is only one of the many factors that
determine what students actually “learn”.

This essay has discussed several issues related to the process of language learning. The main idea that
I have developed after reading this book is that language learning is a complex process that involves a
variety of factors such as cognitive development, teaching strategies, context, and learner
characteristics, among others. In this regard, language learning processes are not simple and
straightforward, and must be approached from a situated and multi-angled perspective.

References

Genesee, F. (1976). The role of intelligence in second language learning. Language Learning, 26(2),
267-280.

Lightbown, P. (2008). Easy as pie? Children learning languages. Concordia Working Papers in Applied
Linguistics, 1, 1-25.

Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (2013). How languages are learned, 4th edition-Oxford Handbooks for
Language Teachers. Oxford university press.

Lightbown, P., Halter, R., White, J., & Horst, M. (2002). Comprehension-based learning: The limits of
‘do it yourself’. Canadian Modern Language Review, 58(3), 427-464.

Long, M. H., & Porter, P. A. (1985). Group work, interlanguage talk, and second language
acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 19(2), 207-228.

Lyster, R. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition, 26(3), 399-432.

Norton, B., & Toohey, K. (2001). Changing perspectives on good language learners. TESOL
Quarterly, 35(2), 307-322.

Nunan, D. (1998). Teaching grammar in context. ELT Journal, 52, 101-109.

Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. IRAL-International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language

Teaching, 10(1-4), 209-232.