Acquisition vs. Learning

Reflection #1:

Sometimes it is thought that acquisition and learning are the same but as far as second language learning is concerned, these are two different processes. In Krashen’s Monitor Model (1981, 1982), it has been described that both “acquired” and “learnt” knowledge are located at the left brain. However, the difference between the two is that, the acquired knowledge or implicit knowledge is located in the language area while the learnt or explicit knowledge is not but is available for monitoring purposes. According to the underlying principle of this theory, acquisition is a subconscious process and of “acquiring” a language as a result of an individual’s exposure and participation to natural communication. Unconsciously while an individual interacts he unknowingly absorbs and acquires new language and are stored in the language area. Without giving much effort, the speaker acquires the language because of his constant and natural exposure. The important thing here is that the communicators’ understand each other and are a able to decode the meaning of what the other person is communicating. On the other hand, learning occurs as a result of conscious study of the formal properties of the language. This involves grammar structure, sounds and meaning.

I agree with the proponent of this theory. This is definitely true. Learning can never be equated with acquisition. In other words, there is not much effort in acquiring knowledge unlike learning. While it is true that acquisition of knowledge is implicit and that it comes out of the blue, this is being supported by the theory of John Locke which principle suggests that the mind of a child is like a blank slate, a tabula rasa. Therefore, it is capable of recording anything around his environment and I think this is how I have understood Noam Chomsky’s Universal grammar where such principle stipulates that a child acquires this grammar as he uses it to create correct and appropriate grammatical sentences in the language to which they are exposed. In fact, in linguistics, we are also taught of a thing called “lexicon” which refers to our mental dictionary. In other words, the child unconsciously creates a mental dictionary in his language exposure. He maximizes this acquired knowledge in his communication and interaction with other people.

And since learning is a different thing and can never be interchanged with acquisition, as it requires one’s effort and conscious way of studying specific language, one should give much effort to learning than just merely acquiring. This is where the need for formal school comes in. It is in the school where we are taught of the prescriptive grammar as the school is the authority to give rules in second language learning.

The question now is how this theory can be best applied in actual language teaching practice for second language learning. Just as how simple the question is, the answer is also very simple and maybe in some ways, hard to comprehend. But basically, this theory can be best applied in our own teaching field, specifically in language teaching. We start with the micro before we go to the macro. Teachers are supposed to maximize the innate language ability of the child and capitalize this for him to learn the macro way in language. We cannot expect a child to learn other languages unless we learn their language (their legitimate system) and never reject it and maximize this child’s exposure in his own right for him to learn wider and broader knowledge by connecting his own language to what is acceptable and understood universally.

When we apply this to our class (where students have their own language that we sometimes don’t understand), we cannot enforce our own and teach them other languages but as I have said earlier, we allow them to connect this previous learning to what is accepted universally. That way, we open their doors to learning that is more worthwhile and at the same time we are motivating a child to love “to learn” rather than “hate to learn” language. We should not enforce language learning to a child as something that is hard to do as this will create trauma to a child’s experience. But we should make them realize that indeed it is part of their system and that there’s nothing they should be frightened of about language learning and development.

As teachers or language teachers, our biggest role is to enhance love for learning among individuals and make them feel good that they are not discriminated. We should make them feel accepted and that whatever he has learned is something that makes him who he is and the things that we will help him learn can help him who will he become in the future. Definitely, we could not unlearn what the child has already learned, in that sense, as language is innate among individuals, it is just imperative to enhance his own language so that he will become more productive.

The bottom line is, language is part of man’s person as he is. And that it functions as an important element for his communication at the time he started to reach out and communicate with others even before he starts to walk. In other words, we don’t teach and change a child as far as language development is concerned but we are supposed to develop in him what he has stored already in his system. In short, we can capitalize his acquired knowledge, allow our students to collate and connect his acquired knowledge to learning so that his second language learning can be easier and interesting.