Professional Documents
Culture Documents
f'reface
LEAR NILJLN""""G_,__,--~~-
8blD TEACHING
ACK"IOWLEDGMENTS
TI1is book has grown out of graduare courses in second language acquisition that I have taught at San Francisco State l 1niversity, the University of
Illinois, and the University of Nlichigan. My first debt of gratitude is therefore to n1y students-.for their insights, enthusiasn1, and support. They
offered invaluable comments on the first three editions of the hook, and .I
have attempted to incorporare those insights into this Fourth Edition. I
al"\vays learn so much from my srudents!
I am also grateful to faculty colleagues both here at San Francisco Srate
lJniversity and around the wodd for offering verbal comn1entary, informal
\vritten opinion, and formal published reviews, all of which \\Tere useful in
fashioning this Fourth Edition. I especia!ly want to thank Ton1 Scovel, May
Shih,Jiln Kohn,Aysegl Daloglu, and the publisher's anonymous revie\ver~
for feedback and encouragement. Further, I \Vish to acknowledge the staff
and che resources of the American Language Institure _,r s~1_pport in the
tilne-consuming task of this revision. I am particularly grateful to Kathy
Sherak for assuming theALJ directorship duties while 1 took a leave to complete this revision.
Finally, to Mary-rny wife,lifetilne companion.and bcst friend~thanks
once again for believing in me way back \Vhen I embarked on thls career
and for letting me take over two rooms of r.he house for rhis projcct!
'
}l.
;t
Douglas Brown
27
C/!APTER 1
When?
\'\fhen does second language learning take place? Onc of the key issues in
second languagc research and teaching s the diffcrential success of children and adults in learning a second language. Common observation tells
us that children are ''better" language learners than adults. Is this true! If so,
why does rhe age of learning make a difference? How do the cognitiYe and
emotional developrnental changes of childhood and young adulthood
affect language acquisition? Other "when" questions center around the
amount of thne spent in the activity of learning the second language. Is thc
lcarner exposed to three or five or ten hours a week in the classroom? ()r
a seven-hour <lay in an imrnersion progrJ.m? Or rwenty-four hours a day
totally submerged in the culture?
tho;e
In the case of the teacher, another set of cuestions emerges. W'hat is the
tcacher's native la.nguage? experience and/or trJ.ining? knowledge of the
second language and its culture? philosophy of education? personality characteristics? i\'iost tnportant, how do the teacher and the student interact with
each other?
Where?
Are the learners attempting to acquire the second language with.in the cttltural and linguistc milieu of the second language, that is, in a ~second" language situation in the technical scnse of the term? Or are they focusing on
a "10reign" language context in which rhe second language is heard and
spoken only in an artificial environment, such as the modern language classroom in an Axnerican university or high school? How might the sociopolit"
ical conditions of a particular country affect the outcomc of a learner's
xnastery of the language? l:IO\.V do generJ.l intercultural contrasts and similarities affect the lcarning process?
What?
No simpler a quesrion is one that probes the nature of the subject n1attcr
itself. \li/hat is it that the learner must learn and the teacher teach? What 1~
corrununlcalion? \Vhat is language? \Xlhat docs it 1nean when we sav
someone knows how to use a languagc? How can both the first and th~
second language be described adequately? \\;11at are the linguistic differences bctv;,reen the first and rhe second language?These profound questions
are of course central to the discipne of linguistics. The language teacher
nceds to u.nJerstan<l the system and functioning of the second language and
the differences between the first and second language of the learncr. It is
une thir..6 for <J te:;chc; to spc~;k and unJe:-stanJ ;::. ianguag'."" :T;,<l yet annthc;
matter to attain the technicaI knowledge required to understand and
explain the system of that language-its phonemes and morphemes and
words and sentences and discourse structures.
Why?
Finally, the most encompassing of all questions: \X?hy are learners
atten1pting to acquire the second language? \Xlhat are their purposes? Are
they m0tivated by the achievement of a successful career? hy passing a foreign language requiren1ent? or by wishing to identify closely with the culture and people of the target language? Beyond these categories, \.Vhat
other affective, emotional, personal, or intellectual reasons do learners ha ve
for pursuing this gigantic task of learning anothcr language?
These qucstions have been posed, in very global rcrms, to give you an
inkling of the diversity of issues lnvo!ved in the quest for understanding the
principies of language learning and teaching. And while you cannot hope
to find final an6wers to all the questions, you can begin to achieve a surprising number of answers as you movc through the chapters of this book.
How?
IIow <loes learning take place? 1-:Iow can a person ensure succes.<, in language lc~1rning? Wbat cognitive processes are utilized in secood language
learning? \V'hal kinds of strJ.tegies <loes the learner use? \X-'hat is the opthnal
28
0/APTER 1
CHAPTfl< 1
And you can hone the global questions into finer, suhtler questions, vvhici1
in itself is an ilnportant task, for often heing able ro ask the right quesrions
is more valuable t.han possessing storehouses of kno"\vledge.
Tho1nas Kuhn (1970) referred ro "norn1al scence" as a prOCL".:ss of
puzzle solving in which part of the task of thc scicntist, in this case the
reacher, is to discover the ph:ccs and then to fit thc pieces togerher. Son1e
of the pieccs of the language learning puzzle havc beco1nc -..vell establbhed. Others are not yet discovered, and the careful defining of questions
vvill lead to finding those pieces. We can rhen undertake the task of fitring
the pieces together into a "paradig1n" -an interlocking design, a theory of
second language acquisition.
That theory, like a jigsaw puzzle, nceds to be coherent and unified. Jf
only one point of vicvv is taken-if you look al only one facet of second language learning and teaching-you \\-'ili derive an incon1p!ete, partial tht:ory.
The second langtiage teacher, with eyes vvkte open to the total picture,
neecls to form an integrated understanding of the many aspects of the
process of second language learning.
In order to begin to ask further questions and to find answers to sorne
of those questions, vve 111u.sr first address a fundan1ental concern in
prohlen1-posing: defining or Jelin1iting the focus of our inquiry. Since this:
book is about language, learning, and teaching, let's see what happens
\Vhen wc try to "<lefine" those three tcrn1s.
Language,
On the other hand. you might have offered a svnthesis of standard dei_niti.Qfil. out of introductory textbooks: ~1gu:ige is a system of arbitrary
conventionalized vocal, \\-'ritten, or gestural symbols tb::t enable rnembers
of a given con1munity to comn1unicate intelligihly vvith one anotheQ
Depending on how fussy you were in your response, you n1igh t abo ha ve
included sorne n1ention of (a) the creativiry of Ltnguage, (b) rhe presumed
prin1acy of speech over writing, and (c) the univers;'l.lity of language among
hun1an beings.
A consolidation of a nun1ber of possible definitjons of language yiel<ls
the follo\ving composite definition.
l.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Language is sysrematic.
L1nguage is a set of arbitrary symbols.
Those symbols are primarily vocal, but 1nay also be visual
The symhols haYe convention;:ilized mcan1ngs to \Vhich they refer.
Language is used for comn1unication.
Language operates in a speech com1nunity or culture.
Langu:1ge is essentiaUy hun1an, altho11gh possihly not lin1ited ro
hu1nans.
8. Language is acquired by all people in n1uch the same \Vay; Janguage and language learning both have universal characteristics.
LANGUAGE
1\ definition of a concept or construct is a staten1ent rhar captures s key
features. Those fe-atures may vary, depending on your ol;\.-n (or the lexlcographer's) understanding of lhe construct.And, n1ost in1pottanr, that understancling is essentially a "theory" that explicares rhe constrnct. So, a
definition of a term may be thought of as a condensed 'Trsion of a theory.
Converscly, a theory is sin1ply-or not so si1nply-an extended clefinition.
Defining, therefore, is serious business: it requires choices about which
facets of so:TH_':hi:1g are worLhy of being includc:d_
Suppose you were stoppec! by a reporter on the street, and, in the
course of an interview about your field of study, you \Vere asked: "\VelL
since you're interested in second l.angua,ge acquisition, ple-ase ~
[a11guage in a sentence or_tvvo." You would nn doub1 Llig deep into your
1nen1ory for a typical diction;try-type definition of langnage. Such
definitions, if pursued seriously, could lead to a lexicographer's wi!d-goose
chase, but they also can refiect a reasonably cohcrenl synopsis of currcnt
understanding of .iust wh<~t it is that linguists are trying to study.
If you had had a ch:J.nce to consulr tlit: (.'oncise Co!u1nhiil
EJI(J 1ClojJedia (199-: 479), ynu n1ight have responded to your questiune.r
These eight staten1ents provide a reaso11;1hly c:nncise "CTventy-flve-vordorless., defirtion of fa.nguage. But the ~impliciry of the eightfold definition
should not be allowed to n1ask the sophisrication of linguistic research
un<lcrlying each concept. Enormous fields and suhfie1ds, year-long universiry
courses, are suggested in each of the eight categories. Con.sider son1e of these
possible areas:
1. Explicit and fonnal accounrs of the systen1 of languagc on se,-eral
possible !evels (111ost conunonly phonologicaL synr:iclic. and
sen1antic).
29
CHAPTfR 1
U-!Al'TfR
Serivus ;inJ extensive thinking about these eight topics involves a com
plex journcy through a labyrinth of lingubtic science-a rnazc that continues to be n>..:gutia.:d. Yet the language teacher needs to kn.ow something
about tls syste1n of conununication that we call language. Can foreign language teachcrs cffectively teach a language if they do not know, even in general, sornething about the relationship between ianguage and cognition,
-..vriting systems, nonvcrbal communication, sociolinguistics. and first language acqubition? And if the second language learner is being asked to be
successful in acquiring a system of communication of such vast con1plexty,
isn't it fea;:.onable that the teacher have awareness ofwhat the con1ponents
of that system :'re?
Y'our undcrstanJing of the con1ponents of language determines to a
large extent hoy;;- you teach a language. If, for ex:unple, you believe that
nonverbal cu1nn1unicatlon is a key to successful second language learning,
you v:ill devotc son1e attention to nonverbal systen1s and cues. If you perceive languagc as a phcnun1enon that can be <lisrnantled into thousands of
discrete picces and those pieces progra.mmatically taught one by one, you
'>Vill atten<l carcfully to an under.stan<ling of the separability of the forms of
hn:gu<tge. lf yo~1 thillk l:ing;_;:.gc is csscntially cultural and inteF-tcti'-TC, your
cl'1ssroom n1eth0dlugy will be imbued wilh socio!inguistic strategies and
conununicativc tasks.
This book touches on sorne of the general aspects of language as
defined abo\'e. iv1orc spcciflc aspects will have to be understoo<l in the context of an acJ.Je1nic prograJn in a particular language, in which specialized
study of Linguistics is obviously reconunende<l along with a careful analysis
of the foreign language itself.
30
CHAPTEN
CHAl'TU< 1
~CHOOLS OF THOUGHT IN
,,ECOND LANGUAGE ACQIDSITION
:f.
ered by field _-1ingtists-- 111<t- ge.n:-rative Hriguist- was lnterested not only Jn
describing langu-age (acl-iieving the level of descri1)tive aclequacy) bllct lso
iri:-rfivi11g- at ttn expla:natory-teveT"--Of- rtdeqttitcy in the study of language.
that is, a "principled basis, independent of any partic11lar l:ingn:lge, for the
31
1O
CHAPTER l
CH->,PTER-1
11
thc physical Jescription of the perS(Jfi, the time of day, the size of the chair,
the ilnpact of the chair, and so forth. Another set of questions vvould ask why
the person did what he di<l: \Vhat were the person's motives and psych(~
logical state, what nght have been the cause of the behavior, and so on. The
first set of questions is Yery rigorous and exacting: it allows no fla\\, no mis,
take in n1easurement; but does it gi\e you ultimate answers? The secon<l set
of questions is richer, but obviously riskier. By daring to ask sorne <lifficult
questions about the unobserved, '""e may lose sorne ground but gain 1nore
profound insight :thout hu1nan beha..,ior.
Constructivism
Constructivism is hardly a new school of thl)Ught. Jeai1 -Piaget nd -Lev
vygotsk)'; names often associated \Vith constructivisn1, are not by any 1neans
ne\v to the scene of language studies. Yet constructivisn1 el'erged as a prevailing paradigm only in the last part of the twentieth ceritry. What is constructivism, and how <loes it dfer from the other two vievvpoil.ts described
0
above?
1).\o r1' ch\\e-re- +"
Constructivists, not ~son1c cognitive psychologists, argue that aU
human beings construct their "''n \'ersion of reality, and theretrc n1ultip!e
contrasting ways of kno~ving and descrihing are equally legitin1ate. This
perspective nlight be described as
Constructivist scholarship can focus on "individuals engaged in social practces,. . on a collaborative group. [orJ on a global community (Spi,ey
1997: 24).
1\:~,,nstn.lct.t visr persptctive gucs a ltttle beyonJ the rationaiist/innatbl
ai1d the cognitive psychulogcal perspective in its emphasis-01tthe prin1acy
of each irtdividual's, construction of re:ility. Piaget and Vygotsky, both con1
1nonly described as c1'stfuctivists'(in Nyikos & I-Iashin1oto 1997), differ in
the' extent to "\\7 llieh e'ah- etnphasii:es 'socal 'cntext. Piag'et"(l 972) stressed
the ihi)<Jrtance of'idivldual cognitive development as a relativly solltary
act. Biolo:-gictf tir1etib1es and- srages of devetopment w'eie basic; socialintei'action \Vas claime<l only to trigger develop1nent at the right n1oinent
in tin1e-. ()n the other hand, Vygotsk)' {1978), <lescribed as a "socll" constructivtst by soe, maint:iined that social interaction was foundational in
cognitivC development and rejCcted the notion of predeter1nined stages.
32
12
CH-\PTER
Language,
Learning,
,ind
1eaching
Cf!APTFR
Table 1.1
Schools ofThoughi
Typical Themes
Structuralism &
description
observable performance
Behaviorism
paradign1, a novel theory, is put together. This cycle is eYident in both psychology and linguistics, although the limits an<l hounds are not always
easily percei\'ed-perhaps less easily perceive<l in psychology, in \-\hich aU
three paradign1s currently operare some~vhat _simnltaneously. The cyclic~tl
nature of tbeories un<lerscores the facr that no single theory or paradigm
is right or wrong. It is impossible to refute with any fin::tlity one theory \vith
another. Sorne truth can be found in virtua!Jy every theory.
en1p1ricism
surtace structure
conditioning, reinforcement
Ratonalism &
Cognitivl-:' Psychology
linguistics
acquisition, innateness
generative
int:rlanguage systematicity
universa-! grammZlr
con1petence
deep structure
earlv 2000
Constructivisrn
13
The parteros that are illustrated in Tahle 1.1 are typical of what Kuhn
scientific n1ethod
(1970) Jescrlbed as 1he structure of scientific revo!urions_ A successful para<lig1n is foilo\ved by a period of anomaly (douht, uncerr:nty, questioning
of prevailing theory), then crisis (the fall of the extsting r<1rac!ig1n) ~"ith al!
the professional insecurity that comes there"\\"ith; :tnd then finally a ne\v
Time Frame
1 L1nguage,
inter;H--tive discourse
sociocultural v;:iriables
cooperative group learning
inler!anguage variability
interactionst hypotheses
33
14
Cl-fAl'TER 1
CH-\PTU? 1
15
nicative competence and for explanations of the interactive process of language. The language teaching p.rofes::,ion responded to these theorctical
trends \Vith approacbe::i and techniques that ha ve stressed thc itnportance
of self-esteem, of ::iluJenls cooperatively icarning together, of developing
individual strategics for success, and above ali of focusing on the co1nmunicative process in language learning.-Toclay the term "comn1tucative language teaching" is a by""'or<l for language teachcrs. ln<leed, the single
greatest chaHenge in the profession is to n1ove significantly beyond the
tcaching of rules, pattcrns, definilions, an<l other kno\vledge "about" language to thc puint that we are teaching our students to conununicare gen~
uinely, spontaneou.sly, and n1eaningfu!ly in the secon<l language.
This buok is intended to give you a con1preh~nsiYe picture of the theoretical found~tions of language learning and teaching. But that theory
reo1ains abstract and relatively powerless \-Vithout its applicaton to the
practica! concerns of pedagogy in the ciassroon1. In an atternpt to help to
build hridges between theory and practice, I have provided at the end of
each of the chaplers of this book a brief"vignette" on classroom considerations. These vigncttes are designed to acquaint you progressively with
sorne of thc major rnctho<lologil:al trends and issues n the profession. The
vignettes are vbvlou.siy not intended t_o be exh;1uslivc (refer to such books
as Brown 2000: R.ichard-Amato 1996; Nunan 1991b; Richards and Rodgers
1986 for tnore specific treatn1ents), but they should begin to give you a bit
of history and a picturc of the practica! consequences of developing the
theoretical principies of language learning and teaching.
Today, languagc teaching is not easily categorized into 1nethods an<l
trends. lnstead, each teacher is caHed on to develop a sound overa.U
approach to -;;arious language classruoms. This approach is a principled
basis upon which the teacher can choose particular designs and techniques for teaching a foreign ianguage in a particular context. Such a
prospect n1ay seern fonniJable.There are no iostant recipcs. No quick an<l
casy method is guaranteed to provide success. Every learner is unique.
Evt-ry teach...-::f b unique. Every learner-teach~r rcl:itinnship is uniqne. ancl
evcry context is unique. Your task as a teacher is to understand the properties of those reiationships. Using a cautious, enlightened, eclectic
approach, you ...:an build a theory based on principles of second language
lcarning and tcaching. 'D1c chapters that follov;. are designed to help you
formulate tbJ.t approach.
We begin a series of end-of-chapter vignettes on classroom applications with a language teaching "tradition" that, in various manifestatons and adaptations, has been practiced in !anguage classrooms
worldwide for centuries. A glance back in history reveals few if any
research-based language teaching methods prior to the t\ventieth
century. In the Western world, "foreign" language learning in schools
was synonymous with the !earnng of Latin or Greek. Latin, thought
to promete inte!lectuality through "mental gymnastics," was until
relatively recently held to be indispensable te an adequate higher
education, Latin was taught by means of what has been called the
Classical Method: focus .~ _ g__~arnmatii:;:_aJ_. LLJle~,___ __ DJ.Q____D_Qdza_t_iQn __ of
vocabulary and of V("l,r[~US~decl~.osi0-5-3nd ccnjugations, trcl1~1a-t"i61
oTtexts~,.dd!ng w_rlten .e0erc:ises. As. other-i-anguageS bQn.-Eo.. bE:
taught in educationa! institutions in the eighteenth and nineteenth
centuries, the Classcal Method was adopted as the chief means far
teaching foreign languages. Little thought was given at the time to
teaching oral use of !anguageS; after all 1 languages were not being
taugt1t ptihlari!y to learn oraljaural communication 1 but to !earn for
th'" Sake of being "scho!arly" 9r,_ in sorne instances, for gaining a
reading proficiency in a forelgn language. Since there was little if
any theoretical research on second language acquisition in genera!,
or on the acquisition of reading proficiency, foreign languages were
taught as any other ski!! was taught.
Late in the nineteenth century, lbe C!assical Method carne to be
known as the Grammar Translation MetflOcl~iherewas little to distifi9ulsh--Gramrrlar-Transladon frOm what had gone on in foreign language classrooms far centuries, beyond a focus on grammatical
rules as the basis far trans!ating from the second to the native language. But the Grammar Translation Method remarkab!y wlthstood
attempts at the outset of the twentieth century to "reform" language
teaching methodology, and to this day it remains a standard
methodology far language teaching in educationa! instltutions.
Prator and Celce-Murcia (1979: 3) list the majar characteristics of
Grammar Translatton:
1. Classes are taught in the mother tangue, with little active
use of the target language.
2. Much vocabu!ary is taught in the form of lists of isolated
words.
3. Long elaborate explanations of the intricacies of grammar
are given,
4. Grammar provtdes the rules far putting words together1 and
instruction often focuses on the form and inflection of
words.
5. Reading of difficult c!assical texts is begun early.
6. Little attention is paid to the content of texts, which are
treated as exercises in grammatlcal analysis.
34
16
CHAPTER J
CHAPTE!i 1
17
reflect on the part of the lexicographer? How <lo those definitions rep~
resent "condensecl theories"?
3. (I/G) Write your O'\\.n "twenty-five-,vords-or-less" definitions of language.
learning, and teaching. What would you add to or delete from the dcfinitions given in this chapter? Share your definitions with another classmate orina sn1all group. c:on1pare differences and similarities.
4. (G) Consider tbe eight subfie!ds of Hnguistics liste<l on page 6. and,
as.':iigning onc subfield to a pair or small group, <liscuss briefly the type
of approach to second language teaching that might emerge fron1
e1nphasizing the exclusive importance of your particular subfield.
Report your thoughts to the whole class.
5. (C) What did Twaddell (1935: 57) mean when he said, '"fhe scientific
method is quite simply the convention (hat mind does not exist"? \V'hat
are lhe advantages and disadvantages of attending only to "publicly
observable responses" in srudying hun1an behavior? Don't limit yourself
only to language teaching in considering the ran1ifications of behavioristic principies.
6. (C) Looking back at the three schools of thought described in this
chapter, try !O come up with sorne examples of activities in the language classroo1n that would match the three perspcctives.
7. (C) Considering the productive relationship ber;veen theory and practice, think of sorne examples (fro.m any field of study) that show that
theory and practice are interactive. Next, think of son1e specific types of
activities typical of a foreign language class yo u ha ve been in (chora!
drills, translation, reading aloud, using a vocabulary \VOrd in a sentence,
etc.). \'X'hat kind of theoi-etical assun1ptions underlie these actiYities?
How might the success of the activity pos"ibly alter the theorv behin<l it?
8. (G) Richards and Roc!gers (1986: 5) said the GrJ.mtnar -Translation
i\'lethod "is a 1nethod for which there is no theory." \Xfhy <lid they make
that statement? l)o you agree '\\'ith them? Share in a group any experiences you have hacl "'\\'ith CYrammarTranslation in your foreign language
classcs.
7. Often the on!y dri!ls are exercises in translating dlsconnected sentences from the target language into the mother
tangue.
8. Little ar no attention is given to pronunciation.
It is remarkab!e, in one sense, that this method has been so stalwart among many competing models. It does virtually nothing to
enhance a student's communicative ab!lity in the language. It is
"remembered with distaste by thousands of school !earners, for
whom foreign language learning meant a tedious experience of
n1emorizing endless lists of unusable grammar rules and vocabu!ary
and attempting to produce perfect translations of sti!ted or literary
prose" (Richards & Rodgers 1986: 4). In another sense, however,
one can understand why Grammar Translation is so popular. It
regui_ees f_ew_ ~pecia_lized _skills on the part of tea~-~--~rs. Tests of
gramma-ruleS a"d of translations are easy to coStuct and can be
objectively scored. Many standardized tests of foreign languages still
do not attempt to tap lnto communicative abilities, so students have
Htt!e motivation to go beyond grammar analogies, translations, and
rote exerclses. And it is sometmes successful fn leading a student
toward a reading knowledge of a second language. But, as Richards
and Rodgers (1986: 5) pointed out, "it has no advocates. It is a
method far which there is no theory. There-ls n-o- literature that offers
a rationale or justificatlon far it or that attempts to relate it to issues
n !inguistics, psychology, or educational theory." As we continue to
examine theoretical principies in this book, I think we will understand more fu!!y the "theorylessness" of the Grammar Translation
Method.
SUGGESTED RFADINGS
35
18
Cl-IAPIER l
0-1,.1/'TER 1
19
As you start(ed) your foreign language class, ..vhat is your overall emo-
Education.
Richard-Amato, P-atricia A. 1996. l'v!aking It I-Iappen: Interaction in the
Second Language Classroom, Frorn Theory to Practice. \Vllite Plains, N"''i/:
Pearson E<lucation.
Richards,Jack and H.odgers, Theodore. 1986. Approac/Jes t!nd J1etbods in
Language Teucbing. Can1bridge: Cambridge lJniversity Press.
36