The Language Teacher
November 2001
On the Role of Input and Needs in Second/Foreign Language Acquisition
Ahn Soo-Woong
Pukyong National University, Busan, S. Korea
When teaching English in elementary schools was introduced in Korea in 1997, the theoretical basis was the critical period hypothesis (CPH). During years of debate for and against introducing teaching English in elementary schools, very few people raised questions about whether the CPH would work in Korea as it works in California or Canada. Success stories of Korean children acquiring English fast in such places as Los Angeles were quoted in justifying beginning to teach English at a younger age. It seemed that people took it for granted that the "younger = better" theory would work because the research data proved it. But the fact was overlooked that most of the research data were from research in North American environments. Nunan (1999) points out, "unfortunately, most of the research is irrelevant to settings in which English is taught as a foreign language. Many of the claims in favor of beginning language study in elementary school are based on North American investigation into the effects of foreign language programs in the elementary school (FLES)" (p. 3). It seemed to many Koreans that if the age for starting to learn English were lowered to eight from twelve, the great advantage of an early start would come automatically, as the CPH predicts.
This study proposes that language acquisition is a function of language input and needs, as shown by the following equation:
y = kx
(where y = language acquisition, k = language input, x = language needs)
This equation can be plotted on a graph where input is on the vertical axis and needs on the horizontal axis. The acquisition will be calculated by the total square area on the graph that these two variables make. In an EFL situation like Korea or Japan, the graph will produce a very little total square area with scanty input and needs. In comparison, in the U.S.A. and Singapore it will produce a massive total square area with ample input and needs. So language acquisition depends upon the amount of input and needs children have, even at younger ages. This equation predicts that age alone will not bring natural language acquisition without adequate amounts of input and need.
Theoretical Background
When the CPH was suggested by Penfield in the sixties, the general tendency of linguistic studies was the rise of innatism against behaviorism. The theoretical support for the CPH was from Lenneberg's classical work Biological Foundations of Language (1967) and Chomsky's LAD hypothesis (1965). With theoretical support, the CPH rapidly became a belief held by the general public and also by many second and foreign language teachers. But it still remains "a universal folk belief shared by many linguists" (Aronoff & Rees-Miller, 2001). The provocative arguments behind the CPH and Chomskyan generative linguistics were: 1) Language is acquired by an innate system in the brain; 2) Human brains are preprogrammed at birth to learn a language; 3) Language is not learned; it grows in the mind; 4) Language learning is biological, a change of the genotype to the phenotype; 5) Language is acquired in a special module in the brain; and 6) The innate system (LAD) is triggered by the input.
Comparison of English input and needs in Korea, the U.S.A., and Singapore
To compare the amount of input and needs that elementary school children actually have, questionnaires were conducted with 135 Korean elementary school children, 68 immigrant Korean children in the U.S.A., and 93 Singaporean children. The subjects' age range was nine to ten in Korea, seven to twelve in the U.S.A., and eight to twelve in Singapore. To know the status of English in Singapore, eight statements were given to Professor Foo at RELC Institute, an authority in teaching English in Singapore, and his answers are given in italics after each statement below.
1. An elementary school teacher teaches all subjects always in English except the Chinese language class. Yes.
2. A teacher in the elementary school speaks English to the students outside the classroom at school. Yes.
3. Students speak English outside the classroom with other students. Yes.
4. Children are more comfortable with English than with their mother tongue. Yes.
5. All the textbooks are written in English at elementary schools except the Chinese language. Yes.
6. All the textbooks are written in English at secondary schools except the Chinese language. Yes.
7. English is recommended as a means of instruction, but there are not enough English proficient teachers in the schools. No, all teachers are proficient in English.
8. English is the first language among elementary school children. Yes, statistically speaking, it is safe to say that English is the first language of most elementary school children.
Answers from Professor Foo show that English is the first language among children, that children are more comfortable with English than with their parents' language, and that children learn all subjects with textbooks written in English except the Chinese language. Singapore is a total immersion situation.
The items in Figure 1 are arranged in a continuum of primary input sources to secondary input sources, numbers 1 to 13: 1) My parents speak to me in English. 2) My brothers and sisters speak to me in English at home. 3) After school my friends speak to me in English. 4) People on the street use English for communication with other people. 5) I speak English at stores when I buy things. 6) My teacher speaks to me in English at school. 7) I watch TV programs in English. 8) I listen to the radio in English. 9) I chat online or use the Internet in English. 10) I read English comics and storybooks. 11) I read English newspapers and magazines. 12) I watch English video movies or animations. 13) I listen to English audio story tapes or conversation tapes.
A 0-5 scale was used for the degree of agreement, 5 = very much, 4 = much, 3 = a little, 2 = little, 1 = almost none, 0 = none.
The graph in Figure 1 shows that children both in the U.S.A. and Singapore have much higher input throughout the continuum than Korean children. The status of English in Singapore is almost the same as that of the U.S.A.
Figure 1: Comparison of English Input in Korea, the U.S.A. and Singapore
M=mean
The items for English needs were arranged in a continuum from immediate needs to futur e needs, numbers 1 to 14: 1) I need to speak English to buy food or drinks. 2) I need to speak English to protect myself from any danger. 3) I need to speak English to make friends. 4) I need to speak English to maintain my pride or identity. 5) I need to speak English to get love from my family. 6) I need to speak English wherever I go in Korea/the United States/Singa pore. 7) I need to speak English to get teachers' praise in the class. 8) I need to know English to enjoy English movies. 9) I need to know English to use the Internet or computer games. 10) I need to know English to read English comics or storybooks. 11) I need to learn English to get a higher mark in English examinations. 12) I need to learn English to know a lot of things in this world. 13) I need to know English to get a good job in the future. 14) I need to know English to be a successful person.
The graph in Figure 2 shows that children both in the U.S.A. and Singapore have much higher needs throughout the continuum than Korean children.
Figure 2. Comparison of English Needs in Korea, the U.S.A. and Singapore
Conclusions
It can be said that the CPH is irrelevant in Korea unless conditions are met. It is difficult to expect the good effects of the "earlier = better" theory without ample input and needs for the CPH to work. The CPH is about natural acquisition of language competence, mainly speaking ability. If the CPH works in Korea, the effect should be uniform, not exceptional. But there is no report that Korean elementary school children have acquired natural speaking ability. As DeKeyser (2000) says about the CPH, "Early age confers an absolute, not a statistical, advantage -- that is, there may very well be no exceptions to the age effect," but "Implicit acquisition processes require massive amounts of input, which only a total immersion program can provide, not a program consisting of a few hours of foreign language teaching per week" (p. 520).
References
Cook, V. (2001). Linguistics and second language acquisition: One person with two languages. In M. Aronoff & J. Rees-Miller (Eds.), The handbook of linguistics (pp. 488-511). Oxford: Blackwell.
DeKeyser, R. (2000). The robustness of critical period effects in second language acquisition. SSLA, 22, 499-533.
Nunan, D. (1999). Does younger = better? TESOL Matters, 9(3), 3.
All materials on this site are copyright © by JALT and their respective authors.
For more information on JALT, visit the JALT National Website