Becoming a Language Teacher, Essay Example

SLA Perspectives

Among all the perspectives discussed by Lightbown & Spada (2013,  p. 25), I believe that the social interaction hypothesis is the closest to accurately describing children’s linguistic development today. I believe that Vygotsky was right stating that “thought was essentially internalized speech, and speech emerged through social interaction”. (Lightbown & Spada, 2013, p. 25). Second language development theories have been developed from this hypothesis, and I have had experience with children who acquired second language the same way. I have seen small children who did not speak in the first weeks in school, but understand what was said to them. Once the internalized speech developed, they started to use the language in a logical manner. The importance of interaction was also confirmed by Jacqueline Sachs, who studied the language development of a young child, called Jim. As his parents could not interact with him, as they were deaf, he learned the language through television, therefore, his linguistic communication skills were below the average. His language skills started to quickly improve, once he started conversational sessions with adults. (Lightbown & Spada, 2013, p. 27). Language patterns, such as the order of words, question formation, order of events, the use of grammar and tenses can only be learned through interaction with a competent speaker of the language: a parent or older sibling.

SLA Theories

Similarly, the experience theories focus on the successful acquisition of language skills using the findings of input and output hypotheses (Horwitz, 2012, p. 51). The theory is attempting to explain why some second language learners and children acquiring their first language are more successful than others. Focusing on the child-adult differences, the theory states that they are originated from “environmental differences” (Horwitz, 2012, p. 51). Children are able to gain more “input and scaffolded conversations” through the school system, while they are “more receptive to input” (Horwitz, 2012, p. 51).  According to the input hypothesis, errors should not be corrected, as enough correct input would result in automatic correction. However, the conversation theory states that the number of conversations with competent language users results in more successful first or second language learning. Participation in conversations does increase language proficiency. Further, The theory states – contradicting the input hypothesis – that errors should be corrected during conversation. Children simply acquire a second language faster because they have a greater access to conversations with proficient language users.

Conclusion

I believe that the above two approaches are the most suitable for studying second language acquisition in the classroom: the importance of experience with the language, conversation, and interaction should be considered when developing learning systems for children and adults learning a language. It has been said by experts that it is impossible to learn a language from books, and conversations designed to create a scaffolding for language development should be an important aspect of classroom work. Input and output should be incorporated in exercises. Swain (2010, p. 97) describes these exercises as “collaborative dialogues, consisting of input and output, and also claims that they have one purpose: knowledge-building. He further states that language learning is a cognitive and social activity at the same time. Therefore, the use of the interaction hypothesis and the experience theories would be useful when examining children’s and adults’ language learning.

References

Horwitz, E. (2012) Becoming a language teacher: A practical guide to second language learning and teaching. 2^Nd Ed.pp. 48-54.

Lightbown, P. & Spada, N. (2013) How languages are learned. pp. 14-28

Swain, M. (2000) The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In: Lantolf, J. ed. Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning.  pp. 97-114.