How is Language Acquired?

In the process of learning a language, a learner develops an interlanguage, a mental language particular to the learner during the process of acquisition; the interlanguage reflects the evolving system of grammar, syntax, and vocabulary and preserves features of the L1 while the

Guiora, “Construct Validity and Transpositional Research.”

69

Brown, Principles of Language Learning and Teaching, 64–65. Brown also points out that an adult language

70

learner could potentially overcome the ego-related affective gap if the “seeds of success” were sown early in life. Such metaphorical seeds include things like parents giving children plenty of praise for trying new things even if they fail, parents rewarding “goofy” behavior with laughter instead of stressing decorum, or a home environment somehow otherwise promoting play and creativity.

Johnson, and Newport, “Critical Period Effects in Second Language Learning,” 66–67: “In addition, the Oyama

71

study addressed important claims regarding whether children’s superiority over adults in final attainment is due to factors other than maturation… The adult is less motivated than the child… is more self-conscious about speaking (i.e., practicing and making errors)… and in general is less able to achieve the open attitudinal and affective state required for language acquisition to take place.”

learner develops the L2. The interlanguage, as the psychological process through which 72 language is acquired, is understood as the learner’s personal system of rules for language. SLA theorists have extensively researched how an L2 is processed and produced in the mind as well as how the target linguistic system is most effectively communicated to learners.

Linguists have devoted a significant amount of research to investigating the order of acquisition in which learners achieve mastery of a target language’s features. Early SLA 73 theorists attempted to explain L2 development of the interlanguage based on how the young mind processes the L1; a primary result of this is the attention paid to the phenomena of

formulaic sequences. A formulaic sequence is a “ready-made chunk of language that is accessed as a whole rather than generated by combining the individual elements” of the sequence. For 74 the young L1 learner, formulaic sequences demonstrate how far the learner has progressed in acquiring a mature understanding of the language; however, the main issue with applying this measurement to L2 learners’ level of accuracy is that it often reflects memorization of fixed lexical units rather than creative use of the language to construct the sequences from their grammatical parts.

Consider, for example, a student of Latin learning the imperative mood. This student is taught that the command run! is formed by removing the -re from the infinitive of the verb. After

Often the interlanguage undergoes fossilization, in which the learner’s mental system of the target language ceases

72

to develop. The theory of an interlanguage developed from contrastive analysis and is credited to Larry Selinker who worked from the foundations established by Uriel Weinreich. For further on the nature of interlanguages, see Ortega, “Sequences and Processes in Language Learning,” 81–83.

See Ellis, Understanding Second Language Acquisition, chapter 4 for a thorough discussion of the purpose and

73

mechanisms of such investigation.

Ellis, Understanding Second Language Acquisition, 9 (see also 65 and 81–83).

learning that run! is curre! in Latin, this student, applying the internalized rules of the L1

alongside the basic rules of Latin negation, may, understandably, form the negative imperative as

non curre!, (do) not run!. However, Latin does not conceive of the negative imperative simply as

a negated command; instead, Latin grammar uses the imperative for nolo with the infinitive of the verb of the action for this form. The phenomenon of formulaic sequencing occurs when the 75 student memorizes and employs noli currere! as the template for do not run!, instead of

recognizing the difference between the L1 and L2 and intentionally forming the Latin negative imperative as do not wish to run. Therefore, while formulaic sequences may be useful as a method for producing language, they do not reflect whether or not the learner truly understands the process of the language.

Seeking to answer this issue of the order of acquisition, usage-based theories claim that linguistic knowledge develops in a continuum from words to fixed “chunks” and expressions to partial templates to generalized schematic constructions, which allow for the creative use of language. The major difference between formulaic sequences and usage-based theories is that the latter does not distinguish chunks from constructions on a fundamental level. The usage-based account “acknowledges the variability and non-linearity inherent in L2 development by plotting the messy ‘trajectory of learning’ that follows” as students learn patterns, distinguish

Note that other forms of the negative imperative do exist, although they are generally treated as the exception

75

rather than the rule. Gildersleeve’s Latin Grammar (section 270–275) and Allen and Greenough’s New Latin

Grammar (section 450) lay out various methods of forming the Latin negative imperative. Classic prose uses noli + infinitive, but ne + subjunctive can also be used as hortatory subjunctives or as result clauses depending on

imperatives such as cave, vide, or fac in the independent clause. For a more thorough pragmatic understanding, see Wolfgang de Melo’s The Early Latin Verb System: Archaic Forms in Plautus, Terence, and Beyond and Peter Barrios-Lech’s article “How to Ask Politely in Latin.”

grammatical components, and begin to form constructions independent from provided examples. 76

Once students have achieved mastery of the lexicon and grammar of the L2, the next step in acquisition is pragmatic development—how learners use the language in real-life. While there are many grammatically correct ways to communicate the same message, social context and audience limit the appropriate uses of language. Sociopragmatic competence refers to learners’ ability to adjust the way they speak or write based on the familiarity or status of the audience; pragmalinguistic competence is the learner’s knowledge of the target language’s linguistic forms which are necessary to encode the specific sociopragmatic meanings. Sociopragmatic 77

competence requires learners to internalize the language to the point where they can “feel” the correct usage of force. The ability to perform the appropriate pragmatic use of the L2 is one of the final stages for measuring the learner’s level of fluency, since it depends on a deep familiarity with the cultural implications of language more than just the linguistic forms themselves.

Generally, pragmatic competence cannot be taught; instead, it is the direct result of extensive contact with the target language and intentional sensitivity to the culture of its speakers. 78

Theories on the order of acquisition such as these deal with how learners develop their interlanguage’s repertoire of grammatical constructions. While this question considers language

Ellis, Understanding Second Language Acquisition, 65–66.

76

Ellis, Understanding Second Language Acquisition, 88–91; VanPatten, From Input to Output, 50–52.

77

Many learners, especially adult learners, never achieve sociopragmatic competence in their L2 due to

78

fossilization. Sociopragmatic competence applies to all aspects of language usage, not just foreign language usage. For example, in America, a major signifier of locality is the terminology applied for soda products. A demonstration of sociopragmatic competence would be to call this fizzy drink “soda” in New England or California, “coke” in the South, and “pop” in the MidWest.

acquisition on a macro-level, much theorizing has been done regarding how the mind

understands language at the micro-level as well. The study of lexical processing addresses the cognitive mechanisms that support the comprehension and production of languages as well as the interaction between the L1 and L2. While most of this research focuses on how multilinguals separate and mix their languages, understanding the cognitive science of lexical processing can aid educators in finding the most efficient methods of engaging the student mind for productive learning. 79

The cognitive mechanism for understanding language works as the mediator between input and output. The Word Association and Concept Mediation Models attempt to explain how the L1 and the L2 are represented and interconnected in memory. The mind connects images and words in the native language directly to concepts, but the method by which words in the second language gain access to meaning is a matter of debate.

Two of the most prominent theories for understanding how the multilingual brain processing languages are the

79

Language Mode Hypothesis, which considers default lexical decisions and suggests a sliding scale of activation of the individual’s languages based on subtle indicators in the input, and the Inhibitory Control Model, which uses a “conceptualizer” to build messages and a “lexico-semantic system” which “tags” words and their synonyms and translations based on the language to which they belong. For further explanation of these and other models, see Tokowicz, Lexical Processing and Second Language Acquisition, chapter 2; for models of speech comprehension, see chapter 3. For further on the “tagging” of words, see Foucart and Frenck-Mestre, “Language Processing,” 411– 413.

The Word Association Model suggests that the L1 and L2 are connected by word-to-word links; therefore, the L2 only receives meaning through its connections to the L1.

The Concept Mediation Model suggests that words of the L2 are directly linked to the corresponding mental concepts just as words of the L1.

Concept

L1 L2 Image

Figure 2.1 The Word Association Model. Adapted from Tokowicz, 44.

Concept

L1 L2 Image

Studies conducted on bilinguals have shown that the Concept Mediation Model seems to be more accurate with respect to the mental function of those who are fully fluent in both languages; however, this model likely does not apply to learners at all stages of second language proficiency. 80

The Revised Hierarchical Model concludes that the Word Association Model reflects lexical processing at the beginning stages of learning the L2 and that the Concept Mediation Model reflects lexical processing after a proficient level of acquisition has been achieved. The Revised Hierarchical Model presents a continuum from lower to higher levels of proficiency and attempts to explain the varied nature of the lexical-mental connections based on direction and strength.

According to this model, “first language words are strongly connected to their corresponding concepts but are weakly connect to their second language translations. By contrast, second

Tokowicz, Lexical Processing and Second Language Acquisition, 43–45.

80

Concept

L1 L2

language words are weakly connected to their corresponding concepts but are strongly connected to their first language translations.” 81

This means that translation from the L1 to the L2 is likely to be slower and less reliably accurate than translation from to L2 to the L1 because of the “weakness” of the L1 to L2 direction; however, due to the “strength” of the L2 to L1 direction and the inherent bond 82 between the L1 and the conceptualizer, there is a firm mental pathway for translation out of the target language into the native language. According to this model, fluency is determined by the 83 strength of the connection between the lexicon and the corresponding concepts. At the beginning of acquisition, the understanding of the L2 is mediated by the L1, but, as the learner becomes more familiar with the target language, the bond between the lexicon of the L2 and the

corresponding concepts strengthens until the learner is able to understand the L2 without using the L1 as a tool.

Based on the proposals of the Word Association, Concept Mediation, and Revised Hierarchical Models, developing the strength of the relationship between the L2 lexicon and the corresponding concepts should be a matter of great import to educators. Since the primary

purpose of learning Latin is (at least traditionally) reading texts in the L2, it is, perhaps, logical to spend the most time urging students to strengthen the L2 to L1 pathway. However, this practice only teaches students to demonstrate that they know what the text says; it does not give students

Tokowicz, Lexical Processing and Second Language Acquisition, 45–46.

81

See Foucart and Frenck-Mestre, “Language Processing,” 399–402 for further on error production and the issues

82

that arise due to interaction between the L1 and L2.

Understand “conceptualizer” as the mental processing unit responsible for connecting words and images with

83

the necessary tools for developing the relationship between the L2 and the conceptualizer, which is essential for reading instead of translating.

In light of the different cognitive processes of translating and reading, with the ultimate goal being the latter, it is important for learners to associate L2 vocabulary directly to concepts without the need for an L1 equivalent as the middle-man of the cognitive process. Instead of 84 focusing solely on the word-to-word linking encouraged by literal translation, educators can adapt the curriculum to include more intentional ways to nurture the bond between the L2 lexicon and the conceptualizer. Since images have a direct link to the corresponding concepts, just like the lexicon of the L1, using images as the source (or destination) of the message instead of the L1 would engage a different mental pathway and discourage the learner from becoming dependent on the word-to-word link as the mediator of conceptualization. In a Latin classroom, 85 this exercise can take various forms such as using vocabulary lists/flashcards with pictures instead of (or in addition to) the L1 translation of the words or asking students either to describe the scene of an image in Latin or to draw a representation of a given sentence or passage. 86

2.2.5 The Role of Grammar

Understanding the cognitive mechanisms of language processing demonstrates the importance of quality input for learning. SLA theorists and pedagogues have debated what sort

This is especially important for learning abstract cultural concepts. For example, we call déjà vu by the French

84

term instead of translating it to “already seen” because there is implied weight to the phrase that connects to a specific meaning in the conceptualizer. Similarly, it would be difficult to connect the Latin term pudor to “shame” or

auctoritas to “authority” since these words have no cultural equivalent and their simple L1 counterparts imply

meanings that hinder full conceptualization of the target language term.

See Foucart and Frenck-Mestre, “Language Processing,” pages 396–397, for further on how picture-word pairs

85

can aid recognition.

The Oxford, Cambridge, and Ørberg introductory Latin course books attempt to use images to help students make

86

of input is most effective for learning and have divided the knowledge received by input into two types: implicit and explicit. Implicit learning is the incidental acquisition of knowledge about a complex system largely without awareness of what has been learned. Implicit knowledge relies on the brain’s ability to make connections and to use formulaic sequences to build an

increasingly complex network of associations through substantial amounts of input. Explicit learning involves conscious effort and investigation of a structure. Explicit knowledge relies on the principle of “noticing” patterns and rules in a way that can be easily accessed and articulated on command.

The development of an L2 by means of implicit knowledge is known as acquisition; by explicit knowledge, learning. Stephen Krashen’s Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis encouraged scholars to focus on this distinction in order to help learners acquire the L2 instead of wasting time with excessive explicit instruction. Accordingly, language acquisition is a process similar 87 to a child’s development of the native language; the result is a subconscious proficiency wherein the learner can “feel” the correctness of grammar and “hear” the wrongness of errors but may not be able to articulate the underlying rules. Language learning is accomplished through the

deliberate study of the target language’s grammatical structures and rules; this is the method usually used in classroom instruction since complete immersion (as is ideal for acquisition) is

Krashen, Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition, 10–11.

difficult to arrange and since natural acquisition takes far more time than memorization of rules. 88

In order to obtain full pragmatic competence of a language, a learner, who develops the target language through explicit input, must develop a sensitivity to implicit knowledge as well. However, this does not necessarily mean that implicit learning is superior to explicit. If the goal of the learner is to gain the ability to closely analyze text or speech in the L2, familiarity with the formal rules of grammar is essential. If the goal of the learner is to communicate, “explicit learning can assist the processes involved in implicit learning. …If learners have explicit knowledge of a grammatical rule, they are more likely to [notice] exemplars of this rule in the input they are exposed to and fine-tune their developing implicit knowledge-system.” 89 Therefore, the most effective learning system should include methods of both implicit and explicit knowledge.