Another back issue of the class journal:
(This will actually serve to catch us up to today)

2/7/04
Tuesday’s 426 class really helped clarify for me the differences between the behaviorist, cognitive and constructivist approaches to language learning. I’ve been able to think a bit more clearly about the style of my Japanese class. It strikes me that many of the exercises we do in the book are very cognitive. However, they incorporate aspects of the other styles as well. For example, we are supposed to use tapes in conjunction with the book. A portion of each lesson on tape is dedicated to a dialogue that, in the book, is the kickoff for each lesson. The dialogue sets up the vocabulary we are to learn, and the grammatical constructs. We use the tape along with it so that we can hear native speakers speaking the dialogue. This feels constructivist to me. We are thrown into the language, without knowing much of the vocabulary and grammar. We get to listen and feel.

Later in the lesson, the tape guides us through a set of exercises. One of the exercises is called a transformation drill. The tape reads a sentence for us, while we read along in the book. We are asked to use a new grammatical form to change this sentence into the desired sentence pattern. This is very cognitive, in that we are generating a new sentence pattern based on grammatical knowledge. However, it has a bit of the behaviorist in it as well. We repeat the same pattern over and over again. It’s a drill, and it really drills in the desired grammatical pattern. While we are using our cognitive skills to suss out the right answer, the repetition of the pattern is used to make sure we don’t forget it.

Over all of this, we have the sound of a native speaker or two, immersing us in the genuine sound and texture of the language. This provides the constructivist frosting on our cognitive cake. It makes the use of the textbook much more experiential. We get to perceive with more than one sense. The language gets to sink into our brains through multiple holes.

2/16/04
In all of my foreign language experience, I’ve always had a good accent. Years ago in Germany, riding a train full of fellow EuroRailers (many of them German), I was often asked what part of Germany I came from. Granted, I was traveling with several Germans at the time, and using my German daily. Knowing more about phonology, I now realize that from early on in my language learning I had the ability to extrapolate and apply phonological rules. It’s not just about being able to hear a sound and repeat it, it’s about knowing when to use that sound versus a phonological variant.

I have heard that vowel pronunciation is the most important thing in sounding like a native, but I don’t think I agree with that. Particularly in languages that make heavy use of voiceless stops and affricates (German, Russian, etc.) I think that fine points of articulation really count. They’re not phonemic, but they can make or break your native accent. If just one stop is little too dental, not quite enough retroflex, you’re out of the game. Even supra-segmental distinctions like fortis versus lenis will make your accent suspect if misapplied.

It’s not just phonology that makes you sound native though. Sentence intonation patterns, prosody, and stress are also important. Next to phonology however, the easiest way to sound like a native is to hem and haw like a native. Knowing what to do with pauses and interstitial spaces is absolutely key. If you’re fishing for a word in Japanese and you say “umm, uhh,” instead of “ano” or “mmm” (for example) it doesn’t matter how good your accent is, everybody knows you’re not a native. You have to adopt the conversational mannerisms of the culture.

Speaker inhibition can be very detrimental to language learning. One of the advantages that children have in language acquisition is that they tend to be very vocal and uninhibited. The typical adult (starting around puberty) is going to be conscious of being judged based on performance in the foreign language. This can rapidly turn into a no win situation in terms of performance in the second language: if you make mistakes, you’re judged negatively, if you perform very well you’re also judged negatively (by your peers). The language student is left in a limbo of mediocrity, where competence might be exceedingly good, but performance will always be limited. I believe that this phenomenon shows itself most readily in accent, in that having a poor accent is and easy way to limit your performance in a language without affecting your grades.

Inhibition can not only prevent you from performing to your fullest potential, it can also keep you from learning as much as you could. If you’re afraid to speak, you don’t get practice in the very area where you might need it most.

Understanding the effects that inhibition can have on language learning can help to overcome them. One has to simply choose to not be inhibited. We’ve all either heard of or experienced the “Drunken German” phenomenon. We might hear a friend say, “Well, I know a little German, but it’s much better if I’m drunk”. I have heard this so many times (and experienced it once or twice) that I have come up with a hypothesis to explain it: When people are drunk, many of the self limiting mechanisms fail. People say stupid things when they’re drunk because they aren’t checking themselves. They say German things when they’re drunk for precisely the same reason. Your brain knows most of what it’s been taught, but performance is limited by over analysis, checking, and ultimately embarrassment. All of these things are lacking to varying degrees when intoxicated.

If we could maintain the drunk mentality while sober, our abilities would skyrocket. It’s all about fun, it’s a non-threatening situation, everybody is as drunk as you are and just as likely to say something stupid. Everybody will be equally embarrassed tomorrow, but we’re all having fun right now. That’s the way to learn a language. That said, I’m still afraid to speak a foreign language. Even one I know fairly well.

The biggest problem I have with second language learning, aside from being self-conscious, is remembering everything. I can learn new grammar fairly quickly, pronunciation doesn’t pose much in the way of problems, but remembering all those damned words is hard. This is a case where I believe that behaviorist training methods could work very well for me. I should be spending a few hours a week with flash cards, but I just don’t have the time or energy to do so.

Adults have some advantages over children in terms of second language learning. When children learn a second language it is usually an accident of the environment. They spend a lot of time immersed in that second language because somebody else decided that their life was just going to be that way. Adults rarely have the opportunity for that kind of immersion. Instead the adult has to choose to learn a second language, sign up for a class, take time outside of daily life to learn, and practice deliberately.

I don’t think a child would have the attention span to do this. If we put a child into an adult language class, we would likely see a “Pop go weasel” effect. The learning would have no relevance to the child because it is so outside of daily life. The child, depending on the age, may also lack the cognitive ability to learn a language systematically. Adults are pretty good at this. Adults are able to understand the commitment that they have chosen for themselves. They have the attention span to sit and practice on their own, and the ability to abstract language from daily life and still understand its relevance. They also have cognitive abilities that allow them to learn a language without spending a hefty percentage of theirs lives completely immersed in it.

2/22/04
If I had to classify my approach to learning a foreign language, I would probably say that I am more Ausubelian than Skinnerian or Rogersian. I think it’s difficult to draw clean lines between any of these approaches, in that they all seem to borrow from one another. All three of them have appealing aspects, but I agree very strongly with Ausubel’s idea that it is important to incorporate new learning into an existing cognitive structure. Making connections with personal experience makes it much easier to “think” in the target language, as you are drawing from the same set you would use to speak your native language.

In considering this, it has brought to mind one of the major differences between adult and child second language acquisition. As stated above, children usually learn a second language because it is a part of their lives. There is often little or no specific effort given to the learning process, it just happens. Adults on the other hand, have to go to a classroom and spend hours outside of their lives, specifically attending to second language learning.

It strikes me that, according to Ausubel at least, the children, by the nature of their learning experience are almost guaranteed success, whereas the adults are almost assuredly doomed to failure. This is because the children are learning a language within the context of their own lives. They are attaching the language to real situations they have personally encountered. The adults are making up situation in the classroom. Their textbooks ask them to imagine they are riding a subway (which they have never done) in a city they have never been to, asking strangers about the best places to buy breads and cheeses they have never tasted.

The adult experience in the second language classroom can be so far from the daily experience that it is almost impossible to make connections with existing paradigms in the mind. Thus, the adult can remember the vocabulary long enough to take the test, but not long enough to book a flight to ride that subway to taste that cheese. I believe that it is vital to make the material in a second language class relevant to the students’ lives.

I have noticed in my Japanese class that we are often asked questions not about Japan or sukiyaki, or Muji, but about what we watch on television, what we like to cook, where we live. This allows us to speak of our own experiences, and makes it possible for us to tie the vocabulary and structures we are learning to those experiences. This in turn makes it easier for us to remember what we have learned.