Language learning and habit formation

In the fifties language learning was considered to be a matter of habit formation. The structural linguists thought that language could not be compared as every language has to be described in terms of its own structure. This coupled with the viewpoint of habit formation theory gave rise to what is known as ‘Contrastive analysis’. According to this when a child first acquires a language its peculiar patterns are stamped in the mind of the child. Hence when he starts to learn a second language those items which are the same as that of his first language causes him no difficulty. Those which are more or less similar also do not pose much of a problem. But the items which are completely different from his mother tongue give him a lot of trouble.

So if we compare the phonology, lexis,  syntax and semantics of his first language with parallel items in his second language we would be able to predict the difficulties he might face with. As far back as1945 C. C. Fries remarked that effective materials could be produced if they are based on a scientific description of both the mother tongue and the target language of the learner. This was later elaborated by Lado in 1957. But no doubts have been raised about the use of contrastive linguistics to language teaching.

According to Pit Corder (1978) it is paradoxical to say that language cannot be compared but such a comparison is necessary to produce effective materials. He gives three valid reasons why itis not as useful as it claims to be.

The following are the three reasons:

(1) Not all difficulties and errors can be traced back to the influence of the mother tongue. (This is supported by Richards(1981), Dulay and Burt (1973), Duskova (1969)).

(2) What contrastive analysis predicted as a difficulty did not always in practice turn out to be so (This is supported by Nickel).

(3) Adequate comparison of two languages can only have doubtfulvalidity because of theoretical problems (Hamp (1969). VanBuren (1974), Kreszowski (1974)).

Wardhau (1970) makes a clear distinction betw een the strong and weak hypothesis of contrastive linguistics.

(1) The strong hypothesis states that the difficulties of the learner can be predicted by a systematic contrastive analysis and teaching material can then be devised to meet those difficulties.

(2) The weak hypothesis claims no more than an explanatory role where when difficulties are evident from the errors made by the learner comparison between the mother tongue and the target language of the learner may help to explain them.

Since 1968 there has been a gradual change and research projects in the area of contrastive analysis have broadened their scope in two directions. These two directions are as follows:

(1) Towards more theoretical objectives in language typology and the search for universals.

(2) Towards psycholinguistic orientation concerned with the explanation of second language acquisition.

This new development has been called ‘Contact analysis’ Nemser and  Slama-cazacu (1970-71) suggest that the task of contact analysis is to “explain and predict language learner behaviours with the concrete aim of developing a more scientific approach to the process of foreign language teaching.” Here it merges significantly with error analysis which is based on the theory of language learning as a process of cognitive development.

Language learning and cognitive development

According to the cognitive development theory, the human brain is programmed to learn a language. It is programmed in such a way that it can learn any language to which it is exposed. From the amount of exposure received children collect some data process it and try to build up a grammar for themselves. They do not possess a set of dispositions to respond mechanically to external stimuli. Instead they try to internalize certain rules and try to respond to the external stimuli to the best of their ability.

As cognitive development came to be associated with language learning it was thought learners need not unlearn their first language to learn a second language. Instead they are said to use certain strategies to acquire a set of cognitive structures from the data they receive. These strategies could be similar to the ones used by them when they acquired their first language. As it is normally observed that errors it is considered natural for children acquiring a first language commit a lot of second language learners also to commit a number of errors.

The errors of th e first language learners reveal the strategies they are using to learn the language. Similarly the errors of the second language learners also give an indication as to what strategies they are using to learn the language. These speculations led to the study of errors as the most significant data on which a reconstruction of the learners’ knowledge of the target language could be made.

Pit Corder (1967) says that the processes of first and second language acquisition are fundamentally the same. If the utterances of the first and second language learners differed it could be accounted for by differences in (1) maturational development (2) motivation for learning and (3) the circumstances of learning. In spite of these differences both first and second language learners build up their own grammar and gradually proceed towards the grammar of the language they are learning.

This system which the learners build up for themselves has been given various names but the most widely used terminology is that suggested by Selinker (1974). He calls this Interlanguage to emphasize the structurally intermediate status of the learner’s language system between his mother tongue and his target language. A detailed study of this Interlanguage could help us to understand the learners’ problems better and try to provide timely help to our learners so that they achieve competence in the language they are trying to learn.

If you have any questions, comments or suggestions post them on my blog and I will respond to you: What to Pursue Blog