Something that is currently being debated in several circles is just how an additional language is added to one’s arsenal. There is of course the more traditional idea that we learn a language through dedication, study and hard work. And there is the fanciful idea that we simply acquire a language. Like many things in this world, I think it’s a little bit of both hidden away in that huge grey area. The idea that things are black or white is simply unrealistic in the real world.
The current trend among many learners that blog about their process is leaning toward the natural method and pure language acquisition that is on par with first language acquisition. Simply being exposed to the language and the fruits of the forest will follow. Fluency will leap into your lap like that pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.
Have you ever tried to reach the end of a rainbow? Crazy how that rainbow keeps on moving isn’t it? Well, I’m putting this in the same basket and pure natural acquisition.
This is to say not that I don’t believe in natural acquisition. It’s more like I don’t believe that natural acquisition is the most time-efficient means of acquiring a second language from the beginning stages.
Watching thousands of hours of television in your target language for instance is not going to assist you too rapidly in the areas where you have zero knowledge. I know this from experience. Even with an intermediate knowledge of a language I find acquiring more than a phrase or two a day from television quite difficult. I could achieve the same feat in less than 5 minutes of looking at a phrasebook… learning those phrases.
Likewise, taking learning a language to the extreme a la grammar-translation or audiolingualism is also not the answer in my opinion. I hear many stories of how people have learned languages with programs devised by the Foreign Service Institute (FSI) and I don’t really argue with them. The FSI courses are the epitome of the audiolingual method and are, in my mind, a fantastic to resource to increase your awareness of a language. My primary gripe… if you were to only use a FSI-style course to learn a language, you would perhaps be drilled into submission where the sheer boredom would force you to learn… or force you to give up learning. Either or.
So, where do I stand? You’ve just seen me ridicule both of the major exponents of these schools of thought so this is where the grey comes into it.
As you’re well aware by know (and probably sick of hearing about it!), I’m a huge fan of both Krashen’s Input Hypothesis and Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development and these ideas both take natural elements on board. Something you may not be aware of however, as I haven’t extensively written on the subject as yet, is that I’m also a fan of audiolingualism. Krashen jokes in a conference presentation that the audiolingual method takes all the bad things about language learning and combines them into one method. Amusing, yes… true, no.
I would not recommend to anyway to use an audiolingual program of study as their sole or primary method of learning a language, but I do believe that audiolingual methods play a huge part in consolidating the language you have learned. I do believe however, that you are better off using a more natural and enjoyable method to gain that initial understanding before the audiolingual elements make an appearance in your studies.
My idea is that a foundation can be built by using something moderately natural in a systematic way along the lines of my Multiple Phases. On the extreme ends of the learning or acquisition scale noted above, this is somewhere in the middle if you take a dialogue-driven coursebook such as Assimil or Linguaphone as your primary source of language. To go along with this you could supplement with the natural acquisition strategies of television, radio, music, etc. for some extra enjoyment and of course the thrill of hearing snippets of the language you have previously learned. And then we call in the reinforcements… audiolingualism.
This is, through my language learning experience, where the audiolingual method really flourishes. You have a grounding from your primary coursebook, you have some extra exposure from television and the like, and then you can really drive home your learning through drilling the language beyond belief and then drilling some more.
So, where are we? Are we in the business of language acquisition or the business of language learning? I lean marginally toward the notion of language learning (even though my research interests include “second language acquisition”).
