Dispelling myths

The first step in investigating age and acquisition might be to dispel some myths about the relationship between first and second language acquisi­tion. H.H. Stern (1970: 57-58) summarized some common arguments that cropped up from time to time to recommend a second language teaching method or procedure on the basis of first language acquisition:

1) in language teaching, we must practice and practice, again and again. Just watch a small child learning his mother tongue. He repeats things over and over again. During the language learning stage he practices all the time. This is what we must also do when we learn a foreign language.

2) language learning is mainly a matter of imitation. You must be a mimic. Just like a small child. He imitates everything.

3) first, we practice the separate sounds, then words, then sen­tences. That is the natural order and is therefore right for learning a foreign language.

4) watch a small child's speech development. First he listens, then he speaks. Understanding always precedes speaking. Therefore, this must be the right order of presenting the skills in a foreign language.

5) a small child listens and speaks and no one would dream of making him read or write. Reading and writing are advanced stages of language development. The natural order for first and second language learning is listening, speaking, reading, writing.

6) you did not have to translate when you were small. If you were able to learn your own language without translation, you should be able to learn a foreign language in the same way.

7) a small child simply uses language. He does not learn formal grammar. You don't tell him about verbs and nouns. Yet he learns the language perfectly. It is equally unnecessary to use grammat­ical conceptualization in teaching a foreign language.

These statements represent the views of those who felt that "the first language learner was looked upon as the foreign language teacher's dream: a pupil who mysteriously laps up his vocabulary, whose pronunciation, in spite of occasional lapses, is impeccable, while morphology and syntax, instead of being a constant headache, come to him like a dream" (Stern 1970). The statements also tend to represent the views of those who were dominated by a behavioristic theory of language in which the first language acquisition process was viewed as consisting of rote practice, habit formation, shaping, overlearning, reinforcement, conditioning, association, stimulus and response, and who therefore assumed that the second language learning process involves the same constructs.

There are flaws in each view. Sometimes the flaw is in the assumption behind the statement about first language learning, and sometimes it is in the analogy or implication that is drawn; sometimes it is in both. The flaws represent some of the misunderstandings that need to be demythologized for the second language teacher. Through a careful examination of those shortcomings in this chapter, you should be able, on the one hand, to avoid certain pitfalls, and on the other hand, to draw enlightened, plausible analo­gies wherever possible, thereby enriching your understanding of the second language learning process itself.

As cognitive and constructivist research on first language acquisition gathered momentum, second language researchers and foreign language teachers began to recognize the mistakes in drawing direct global analogies between first and second language acquisition. Some of the first warning signals were raised early in the process by the cognitive psychologist David Ausubel (1964). In foreboding terms, Ausubel outlined a number of glaring problems with the then-popular Audiolingual Method, some of whose pro­cedures were ostensibly derived from notions of "natural" (first) language learning. He issued the following warnings and statements:

- the rote learning practice of audiolingual drills lacked the meaningfulness necessary for successful first and second language acquisition.

- adults learning a foreign language could, with their full cognitive capacities, benefit from deductive presentations of grammar.

- the native language of the learner is not just an interfering factor—it can facilitate learning a second language.

- the written form of the language could be beneficial.

- students could be overwhelmed by language spoken at its "natural speed," and they, like children, could benefit from more delibera­tive speech from the teacher.

These conclusions were derived from Ausubel's cognitive perspective, which ran counter to prevailing behavioristic paradigms on which the Audiolingual Method was based. But Ausubel's criticism may have been ahead of its time, for in 1964 few teachers were ready to entertain doubts about the widely accepted method.

By the 1970s and 1980s, criticism of earlier direct analogies between first and second language acquisition had reached full steam. Stern (1970), Cook (1973, 1995), and Schachter (1988), among others, addressed the inconsistencies of such analogies, but at the same time recognized the legitimate similarities that, if viewed cautiously, allowed one to draw some con­structive conclusions about second language learning.