Job Discussion Forums

[Chancellor]

This thread is inspired by the Why native speakers? thread.

I'm reading Essential Linguistics (subtitled What You Need to Know to Teach reading, ESL, spelling, phonics, grammar) by David and Yvonne Freeman ( http://books.heinemann.com/Products/E00274.aspx ). The book mentions a debate over whether language is acquired naturally or learned consciously and it mentioned that children acquire their first language. It also seems to suggest that some believe second (and, by extension, subsequent) language can also be acquired.

So, what do you think: acquired, learned, both, neither, what?

[fluffyhamster]

I think it was Lyons who wrote something about 'acquisition' being for those who don't care for the connotations of 'learning', but then I must admit that there have been times when I've "acquired" language in informal "conversation" down at the pub/bar/izakaya (mind you, it helped that I'd at least flicked through a few textbooks and lived there for a year or two (all the while avoiding formal, very possibly crap lessons)).

Something about the relevance of theories of linguistics and (first) language acquisition to SLL:
http://forums.eslcafe.com/teacher/viewtopic.php?p=37139#37139

Something about something else:
http://forums.eslcafe.com/teacher/viewtopic.php?p=14496#14496

[rusmeister]

[denise]

[spiral78]

I think quite a few credible writers in the field (Nunan, Willis, and Ellis come to mind) consider both acquisition and conscious study needed, certainly for adult learners. I recall reading that acquisition alone can lead to functionality for some people - those who are immersed in the culture and language. But fluency, even in ideal conditions, almost always requires some actual study as well.

My personal opinion is that both are needed, at least for adult learners. The children of our friends still seem to pick up their second and third languages without study, lucky little things!

[gaijinalways]

I would have to say that the language they will 'pick up' willl be limited as some types of words need to be studied to be learnt and understood deeply.

[spiral78]

I think you're ultimately correct, though at 4 and 6 and 8 they are able to chatter fluently in Dutch, English, and their various mother tongues.

However, later on when they need to read and write in the languages NOT used in their schools, I expect they'll have to study.

Still, I expect it's going to come a lot easier for them than for those of us who started as adults

[Stephen Jones]

You acquire your native tongue/tongues but learn the others. So you can have two or three languages you speak as a native speaker.

For our uses students learn the language we teach. If they could just acquire it, we'd be out of a job.

[spiral78]

Ok, Stephen. How would you label this situation?

I have friends who are married to each other and have two children. She is Bulgarian, he is Norweigan, and they live (and the little girls go to school) in Holland.

The couple speak English to each other, the mother speaks Bulgarian with the girls, the father speaks English and Norwegian with the girls, and the girls speak Dutch at school. Which is their 'native' language??!!

They are fluent in Bulgarian and Dutch - and both prefer to speak Dutch to anyone other than their mother and Bulgarian grandparents. They are highly functional in Norwegian and can carry on relatively complex conversations in English.

[Chancellor]

[rusmeister]

[fluffyhamster]

[Chancellor]

[Justin Trullinger]

[fluffyhamster]

Hey, Bill Vanpatten! I was going to buy his Theories in Second Language Acquisition: An Introduction once, but the shop had sold out when I went back to get a copy. Anyway, interesting post, Justin.