イギリス英会話ブログ

After 7 years teaching English in Japan, I still struggle with the practical aspects of teaching - the job requires constant development and retrospection. Not unlike Toyota’s ‘kaizen’ system of continuous improvement, teachers need to keep up with the constantly changing needs and expectations of their students. This train of thought has led me recently to consider some ideas about language acquisition and how they may impinge on the English teaching classroom.

Universal Grammar :

Chomsky and Lenneberg propose an idea based on the concept of ‘universal grammar’ - ie., that human languages all share sufficient aspects in common to say that grammar is at some level universal. From the concept of ‘universal grammar’ Chomsky then argues that humans are born with an innate, hard-wired language system, which he calls a LAD (language acquisition device) - a set of basic linguistic rules or propositions which are then activated and modified by actual experience of language in the family and society.

When we consider languages as radically different to each other as Japanese and English it is hard to imagine that they are both based on a kind of universal grammar, though personally I find the idea believable. It seems to me that there is a certain logic to human communication patterns - in particular certain often-repeated ‘rituals’ of communication. Japanese, in particular, has many of these ’set patterns’ of conversation as is evidenced by the ritualistic nature of ‘keigo’. In modern English, the language has become more diverse, a reflection of the proliferation of sub-cultures and the social splintering of society arising from the decline of the unifying influence of traditional religion. But within sub-cultures, ‘rituals’ of communication clearly exist - consider for example the language and gestures of fans of different musical styles. Where first-language acquisition is concerned, I think Chomsky’s idea that some kind of mental language structure exists in the human brain from birth is fairly credible - it also supports the idea that language is a skill developed to a high degree in the human animal, perhaps a key facilitator of our sophisticated social organization.

When it comes to the question of second-language acquisition, particularly in young children, there are some unclear factors. For example, can Japanese people learn English in the same way as they learn their mother tongue? The experience of Japanese children who spend some years living abroad suggests that children do have some innate ability to acquire language without formal teaching, though the accuracy of their speech will depend on how long they are able to live in the foreign country, and may never be as good as a true native speaker (ie., one whose parents are both native speakers). The main skill that such children learn ‘naturally’ is pronunciation - I have young students whose grammatical knowledge is fairly sketchy but they sound just like an American when they speak.

If Chomsky’s theory is valid then total immersion in a linguistically-foreign environment is all that should be required for language acquisition. However in my opinion, the fact that even those who have spent long periods (up to 10 years) abroad still produce syntactical errors suggests that some kind of ‘learned competence’ is also required - ie., some explicit teaching of grammatical rules to supplement and shape language acquired from direct experience. This grammatical knowledge will then serve as a kind of conscious regulator enabling a speaker to self-assess the ‘correctness’ of their speech.

From my experience teaching children from as young as 2 years-old, it seems clear that very young children learn by copying the speakers in their immediate environment and from peer pressure (eg., being teased by other children for making grammatical or pronunciation mistakes). A lot of children though, need some time before they can reproduce the language they hear. Perhaps they are processing new language in their LAD, beginning a natural process of recognizing patterns in language. Or perhaps they are just shy and unwilling to open up with a teacher - both a stranger and an un-recognized authority figure. Of course, in Japan constant immersion in an English environment is a practical impossibility. Children therefore have to learn English from a very limited experience - usually one hour a week. This time limitation means that a combination of techniques have to be used - both situational experience and formal teaching of grammatical rules - for example, that we say ‘Do you like dogs?’ and not ‘Do you like dog?’.

Following this train of thought, I find myself questioning the benefit of teaching English (or any second language) to young children. If the process of first-language acquisition is really a sub-conscious application and development of some kind of LAD in an environment full of language, then I can’t help but feel that it is better to let children develop their language skills in their own language fully, before starting to learn a second language. Full immersion in an English environment is impossible in Japan - even students attending an international school have to go home to their Japanese-speaking families in the evening.

It seems to me that, although children do possess a natural ability to absorb English unquestioningly, the knowledge they gain is of very little practical use unless it can be applied in their everyday lives. At best they gain a very sketchy understanding of the language and their speech is riddled with errors (whose correction would require explanations too complex for them to understand) which tend to persist later in life and become an awkward obstacle to mastering the language when they get older.

There may be some social advantages to having young children learn English - for example, they become familiar with the idea that people from other countries exist and that they don’t speak Japanese… and of course they benfit from the interaction with an adult and other students - but I feel that the linguistic benefits are very few and that most children’s time could be more profitably spent studying more immediately applicable skills.

In conclusion, it seems that total immersion is the best way for very young children to learn English, but that this is impractical or nearly impossible for children in Japan. In which case, teaching will require some ‘formal’, grammatical components which very young children cannot easily understand. Therefore, I feel that teaching very young children should not be encouraged as a solution to the low level of English fluency in the Japanese population. As their ability to comprehend grammar develops, English can be introduced into the curriculum - say from Elementary school onwards - but this early knowledge will inevitably contain simplifications which may well inhibit the development of correct English when they get older.
This is a bit of a vicious circle of course - when children have the most capacity for naturally absorbing language they lack the mental constructs to understand the grammar, and when they are old enough to understand the grammar, their ability to naturally absorb language is on the decline. Whatever choice is made about the best age to start learning English, some kind of compromise will be necessary. Personally, I feel the best trade-off is to start from the second or third grade of Elementary school, with basic situational conversation, deepening the focus after Junior High School starts. But please don’t bring me any more 2-year olds to teach…