Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Len8]

Was in a discussion with some school teachers and the topic of "language aquisition" came up. I know there are two theories. One being that language aquisition is cognitive and as such something that we work out using our reasoning powers and general skills. The other theory is that of Chomsky who says we have a fixed location in our brains for the specific purpose of language aquisition.

I know certain areas of the brain serve specific purposes. Visual spatial, motor control, emotions and so on ad finitum. To my way of thinking though language aquisition is a function of the whole brain more than just a specific region.

Anyone out there got any other thoughts on this.

[the_beaver]

Dude, there are way more than two theories.

[Juregen]

[the_beaver]

[Thiuda]

The Beaver is right; there are a variety of theories regarding the phenomenon of language acquisition. The main three are; Chomsky's innateness hypothesis, also called Universal Grammar (UG), cognitive and psycholinguistic theories.

UG bases itself on the observation that the grammar a person develops is underdetermined by the amount of input received during the acquisition process. This is known as the poverty of stimulus argument (Fromkin et al., 2003). In essence: UG argues that a child cannot be prevented from acquiring a language as long as it is exposed to it, as the brain is hardwired for language acquisition. Chomsky draws a parallel between language acquisition and walking, "We are designed to walk... That we are taught to walk is impossible. And pretty much the same it true of language (1994: in Fromkin, 2003:342)." He does not, however, say there is a fixed location in the brain for the specific purpose of language learning, he is philosopher and linguist, not a neurobiologist.

Cognitive theories of language acquisition (very basically) state that language acquisition is primarily a mental process in which the learner constructs a grammar based on, for example, imitation, analogy and reinforcement (Ellis, 1999; Fromkin, 2003).

Psycholinguistic approaches emphasize psychological processes involved, maintaining, for example, that "simple associative learning (Segalowitz & Lightbown, 1999, 45)" might account for language acquisition. There is considerable overlap between psycholinguistic and cognitive approaches.

You didn't specify whether you're talking about first language acquisition (FLA) or second language acquisition (SLA), an important distinction to make as different processes may be involved in FLA when compared to SLA. Given that you were probably speaking about SLA with your fellow teachers, I'd say that I prefer the 'principles and parameters' approach by the Nativists. In broad strokes; it states that there are certain universal principles found in languages across the world and a limited set of parameters that determines variability across languages. This means, when learning a second language (L2) that the parameters of the first language (L1) must be reset, an area in which cognitive functions may play a role. This, I should point out, is only my opinion, the principles and parameters theory is strictly UG, meaning it doesn�t actually make any room for cognitive factors.

Ok, enough waffle from me. Check out wikipedia for more info on the subject matter.

Or, alternatively, try An Introduction to Language by Fromkin et al., a very readable book, and The Study of Second Language Acquisition by Rod Ellis.

[SuperHero]

[Medic]

There seems to be a whole speel on language aquisition for first timers. Infants and children that is.

Language development does not depend on fully functioning general intelligence. Retarded children can carry on long articulate and fully gramatical conversations in which they earnestly recount vivid events that are in fact products of their imaginations.

Metabolic activity in the brain reaches adult levels by nine to ten months and soon exceeds it peaking around the age of 4. Language learning circuitry of the brain is more plastic in childhood; children learn or recover language when the left hemisphere of the brain is damaged, but comparable damage in an adult usually leads to permanent problems

Most adults never master a foreigen language, especially the phonology, giving rise to what we call a foreign accent. Their development often fossilizes into permanent error patterns that no teaching or correction can undo. there are individual differences which depend on effort, attitudes, amount of exposure, quality of teaching, and plain talent.

[EFLtrainer]

I'm of the eclectic set myself. An example of how it all seems to mix:

My L2 is Spanish, which I spoke precious little of when I stopped studying it. My L3 is Korean, which I still don't speak much of. But here's the thing: My Spanish improved while living in Korea with ZERO, and I do mean ZERO input.

Hmmmm....

[laogaiguk]

[chilgok007]

[some waygug-in]

My guess is that it takes a while to "internalize" a second language.

Even if you understand the things you are learning and can produce it in the classroom, it takes a lot longer before you can produce it out on the street.

I had a similar experience with Spanish, after my first year in Korea, I returned to Mexico to visit friends. I got all these compliments on how good my Spanish had become? I hadn't practiced in over a year, but the thing was I could think in Spanish quite easily and I suppose that has something to do with it.

After 4 years in the land of K, I still can't think in Korean.....except for little blips and blobs. I have noticed some improvement lately though, since I started using the Ganada course books. I wish I had used them 2 or 3 years ago.
On a related note,
What exactly is "the dreaded Grammar translation method" anyway?

Does it have anything to do with the Pimsleur system? I found that system very effective for Spanish, but the Korean program ...was not so good.

[chilgok007]

Very interesting topic, I was never really sure if it was all in my head. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that learning two languages uses the same part of the brain? Like doing push-ups for a few months, and then switching to weights; both are different actions, but they both work the same muscle. One interesting thing I've noted is that my English has definetly gone down hill

I'm also using the Ganada course for my Korean self-study. I just finished book one and I'm about to go out and pick up book 2. I find the first book focuses too much on the ultra-formal -ㅂ니다 form, which isn't that great for making friends. The listening drills are great, and have really improved my pronounciation. Another really good book I'm working through is College Korean (Rogers, et al). I think it's the standard college Korean textbook back home.

Pimsleur along with the U.S. State Dept's "Foreign Service Institute" Series are argueably the best language learning courses available. I tried the ten lesson Beginner Korean series, but I feel that ten lessons isn't quite enough to judge the worth of the program. If you interested, check out: http://how-to-learn-any-language.com/e/index.html

Sorry to be off topic here.

[Len8]

I was a teacher of Korean Middle School and Highschool teachers for two weeks this last summer, and it seems as though one of their biggest problems was keeping up their English. They seemed to be losing it more than improving on it, because they were constantly talking down to the low level of the students.

[Medic]

Many explanations have been advanced for children's language learning superiority: they can exploit the special ways that their mothers talk to them, they make errors unself-conciously, they are more motivated to communicate, they like to conform, they are not xenophobic or set in their ways, and they have no first language to interfere.

However there are exceptions and children can learn a language without the special indulgent speech from their mothers; they sometimes make few errors; and they may get no feedback for the errors they do make

Successful acquisition of language typically happens by 4, is guaranteed for children up to the age of six, is steadily compromised from then until shortly after puberty, and is rare thereafter.. thus, there may be a neurologically-determined " critical period' for successful language acquisition analogous to the critical periods documented in visual development in mammals and in the acquisition of songs by some birds

Shortly before their first birthday, babies begin to understand words, and around that birthday, they start to produce them. Words are usually produced in in isolation; this one-word stage can last from two months to a year. Children's first words are similar all over the planet. About half the words are for objects: food,clothing,toys, household items and people. There are words for actions, motions, and routines and modifiers. Finaly there are routines used in social interaction. Children differ in how much they name objects or engage in social interaction using memorized routines, though all children do both.

Around 18 months, language changes in two ways. Vocabulary growth increases; the child begins to learn words at a rate of one every two waking hours, and will keep learning at that rate or faster through adolescence. Primitive syntax begins, with two word strings like

All dry All messy All wet
I sit I shut No bed
No pee See baby See pretty
Our car Papa away Dry pants

Children's two-word combinations are highly similar across cultures. everywhere, children announce when objects appear, disappear, and move about, point out their properties and owners, comment on people doing things and seeing things, reject and request objects and activities, and ask about who, what and where.

Even before they put words to-gether, babies can comprehend a sentence using it's syntax.

Between the late two's and mid-threes, children's language blooms into fluent grammatical conversation so rapidly that it overwhelms the researchers who study it, and no one has worked out the exact sequence. sentence length increases steadily, and because grammar is a combinatorial system, the number of syntactic types increases exponentially, doubling every month, reaching the thousands before the the third birthday.

Normal children can differ by a year or more in their rate of language development, though the stages they pass through are generally the same regardless of how stretched out or how compressed they are.

Children do not seem to favor any particular kind of language (Indeed it would be puzzling how any kind of language could survive if children did not easily learn it!). They swiftly acquire free word order, and in particular grammatical gender, which many adults learning a second language find mystifying, presents no problem: children acquiring language like French, German, and Hebrew acquire gender marking quickly, make few errors, and never use the association with maleness and femaleness as a false criterion.