论文部分内容阅读
【中圖分类号】G424.1【文献标识码】B
【文章编号】2236-1879（2017）08-0044-02
Generally， ‘acquisition’ and ‘learning’ are referring to the second language acquisition and learning. Stephen Krashen （1995） has raised five hypotheses about the second language acquisition to constitute his theory， which consists of “the Acquisition-Learning hypothesis， the Monitor hypothesis， the Natural Order hypothesis， the Input hypothesis， and the Affective Filter hypothesis” （p.9）. This essay will describe the difference that Krashen has made between ‘acquisition’ and ‘learning’ based on his first Acquisition-Learning hypothesis， and state how the difference has influenced the world of English Language Teaching. Firstly， Krashen’s Acquisition-Learning hypothesis will be briefly introduced. Secondly， the difference between ‘acquisition’ and ‘learning’ will be contrasted. Finally， the influence on the world of English Language Teaching made by the difference will be explored.
Krashen’s Acquisition-Learning hypothesis or Acquisition-Learning distinction has probably been regarded as the most basic theory among the five hypotheses. In the hypothesis， ‘acquisition’ and ‘learning’ are demonstrated to be two totally separate ways of adult learners’ second language study. Krashen （1995） argues that some theorists have assumed that only children can acquire while adults can simply learn， however， “the Acquisition-Learning hypothesis has shown that adult learners may also be able to access the same ‘language acquisition device’ that children use” （p.10）. It has explained that not only the conscious and active learning but also the subconscious and implicit acquisition could be an effective way for adults to develop competence in a second language. Meanwhile， many differences between ‘acquisition’ and ‘learning’ may be found out based on the Acquisition-Learning hypothesis.
To describe the difference， the key features of ‘acquisition’ and ‘learning’ need to be primarily compared. Krashen （1995） puts forward the view in his Acquisition-Learning hypothesis that ‘acquisition’ is a similar process to the first language development of the children， which is a subconscious process； whereas， ‘learning’ is a conscious knowledge of a second language. It seems likely that ‘acquisition’ is happening in a relatively relaxing atmosphere， just like the children subconsciously learn their first language through mimicking their mother， adult second language learners may listen to the teachers， and then repeat what they have heard until they can say it by themselves； however， they may know little about the grammatical structure， and would probably form a sense of language. This illustrates that language may be automatically acquired by forming a habit of using the language subconsciously in everyday life. Yet ‘learning’， as a conscious experience， indicates that the learners usually have a distinct goal of study， and they know what they should focus on and follow the teachers， choosing the language points they ought to learn and doing plenty of drills for reinforcement. Apart from the feature， the different processes embodied in the ‘acquisition’ and ‘learning’ would apparently be observed. In the Acquisition-Learning hypothesis， ‘acquisition’ and ‘learning’ are two independent processes. Krashen and Seliger （1975） have maintained that learners are able to acquire language via natural communications， which was considered to be a process occurring in an informal environment， but ‘learning’ is in an artificial and formal environment. To understand it in detail， in second language acquisition， comprehensive messages would probably be transferred to learners without requiring an immediate production from the learners； nevertheless， ‘learning’ is a cognitive process with formal instructions from the teachers， and the class is designed according to special purposes， such as to gain grammar points， to recite new vocabularies， or to do the fast reading.
In addition， the results of ‘acquisition’ and ‘learning’ are distinguished from each other. Mitchell and Myles （2004） have commented， “Acquisition is the result of natural interaction with the language via meaningful communication...and learning is the result of classroom experience， in which the learner is made to focus on form and to learn about the linguistic rule of the target language”（p.45）. Besides， through the process of ‘acquisition’， learners would have a sense of correctness， which means they may judge a sentence correct because they think it sounds right or feels no problem. On the opposite， ‘learning’ is referring to understanding the language rules， being sensitive to the grammatical phenomenon， and utilizing them properly （Krashen， 1995）. It proposes that acquired competence is the consequence of language acquisition， learners may focus on the language for communication regardless of its rules， in other words， students are likely to pay much attention to the communicative act of their utterances， and they might even absorb grammatical information by drawing on people around them. On the contrary， ‘learning’ may engender knowledge of language which is known to most people like grammar rules， and it may enable people to obtain clear and systematic ‘images’ of the target language.
The dear distinction between ‘acquisition’ and ‘learning’ has indeed influenced the world of English Language Teaching. In general， the subconscious process of ‘acquisition’ has generated the audio-lingual method， which is identified with a parrot-fashion style. In the traditional teaching and learning process， grammar-translation which emphasizes language accuracy is widely applied into writing and reading teaching； however， it is not practical enough to meet the demand of listening and speaking tasks. Therefore， according to the theory of language acquisition， audio-lingual method is produced. Students are expected to mimic the dialogue via choral or pairs practise until finally remember it. Lado （1964） has mentioned that “the focus of students is not on the new structure through the audio-lingual pattern drills” （as cited in Krashen， 1995， p.132）. For instance， the learner may learn a new word by replacing one part of the model sentence which is made by the teacher， and it may be unnecessary for teachers to illustrate and explain all target structures of the second language. Krashen （1982） declares that students are supposed to over-learn various patterns so as to use them directly in communicative performance. In addition， student-centred instead of teacher-centred has been of common concern in the world of English Language Teaching. ‘Learning’ needs many an instruction form teachers； thus， the teachers seem to be the core of the classes， while students usually play a role as a machine to taking notes. By comparison， according to Krashen （1995）， ‘acquisition’ requests learners to repeat the target language while teachers are expected to be monitors. To be specific， error correction would not be directly pointing out the errors made by learners， but repeating the utterance correctly. In brief， the main differences between ‘acquisition’ and ‘learning’ could be analysed from three aspects： feature， process and result. The distinctive difference would perhaps be that ‘acquisition’ is a subconscious process while ‘learning’ is a conscious experience based on Krashen’s Acquisition-Learning hypothesis. Moreover， the distinction has changed the world of English Teaching by developing the grammar-translation methodology to the Audiolingualism， and stressing the significance of student-centred as well.
References
Ellis， R. （1992）. Second language acquisition and language pedagogy. Melksham： Cromwell Press.
Krashen， S. （1995）. Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Hertfordshire： Prentice Hall Europe.
Krashen， S. （1981）. Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford： Pergamon Press Ltd..
Lado， R. （1964）. Language teaching： A scientific approach. New York ： McGran Hill.
McLaughlin， B. （1987）. Theories of second language learning. London： Edward Arnold.
Mitchell， R.， & Myles F. （2004）. Second language learning theories. London： Arnold.
Towell， R.， & Hawkins， R. （1994）. Approaches to second language acquisition. Adelaide： Multilingual Matters Ltd.
作者簡介：王馨若，女，出生于1991年6月，四川达州人，四川大学锦城学院助教，文学硕士，主要从事大学英语教育和跨文化交际研究。
【文章编号】2236-1879（2017）08-0044-02
Generally， ‘acquisition’ and ‘learning’ are referring to the second language acquisition and learning. Stephen Krashen （1995） has raised five hypotheses about the second language acquisition to constitute his theory， which consists of “the Acquisition-Learning hypothesis， the Monitor hypothesis， the Natural Order hypothesis， the Input hypothesis， and the Affective Filter hypothesis” （p.9）. This essay will describe the difference that Krashen has made between ‘acquisition’ and ‘learning’ based on his first Acquisition-Learning hypothesis， and state how the difference has influenced the world of English Language Teaching. Firstly， Krashen’s Acquisition-Learning hypothesis will be briefly introduced. Secondly， the difference between ‘acquisition’ and ‘learning’ will be contrasted. Finally， the influence on the world of English Language Teaching made by the difference will be explored.
Krashen’s Acquisition-Learning hypothesis or Acquisition-Learning distinction has probably been regarded as the most basic theory among the five hypotheses. In the hypothesis， ‘acquisition’ and ‘learning’ are demonstrated to be two totally separate ways of adult learners’ second language study. Krashen （1995） argues that some theorists have assumed that only children can acquire while adults can simply learn， however， “the Acquisition-Learning hypothesis has shown that adult learners may also be able to access the same ‘language acquisition device’ that children use” （p.10）. It has explained that not only the conscious and active learning but also the subconscious and implicit acquisition could be an effective way for adults to develop competence in a second language. Meanwhile， many differences between ‘acquisition’ and ‘learning’ may be found out based on the Acquisition-Learning hypothesis.
To describe the difference， the key features of ‘acquisition’ and ‘learning’ need to be primarily compared. Krashen （1995） puts forward the view in his Acquisition-Learning hypothesis that ‘acquisition’ is a similar process to the first language development of the children， which is a subconscious process； whereas， ‘learning’ is a conscious knowledge of a second language. It seems likely that ‘acquisition’ is happening in a relatively relaxing atmosphere， just like the children subconsciously learn their first language through mimicking their mother， adult second language learners may listen to the teachers， and then repeat what they have heard until they can say it by themselves； however， they may know little about the grammatical structure， and would probably form a sense of language. This illustrates that language may be automatically acquired by forming a habit of using the language subconsciously in everyday life. Yet ‘learning’， as a conscious experience， indicates that the learners usually have a distinct goal of study， and they know what they should focus on and follow the teachers， choosing the language points they ought to learn and doing plenty of drills for reinforcement. Apart from the feature， the different processes embodied in the ‘acquisition’ and ‘learning’ would apparently be observed. In the Acquisition-Learning hypothesis， ‘acquisition’ and ‘learning’ are two independent processes. Krashen and Seliger （1975） have maintained that learners are able to acquire language via natural communications， which was considered to be a process occurring in an informal environment， but ‘learning’ is in an artificial and formal environment. To understand it in detail， in second language acquisition， comprehensive messages would probably be transferred to learners without requiring an immediate production from the learners； nevertheless， ‘learning’ is a cognitive process with formal instructions from the teachers， and the class is designed according to special purposes， such as to gain grammar points， to recite new vocabularies， or to do the fast reading.
In addition， the results of ‘acquisition’ and ‘learning’ are distinguished from each other. Mitchell and Myles （2004） have commented， “Acquisition is the result of natural interaction with the language via meaningful communication...and learning is the result of classroom experience， in which the learner is made to focus on form and to learn about the linguistic rule of the target language”（p.45）. Besides， through the process of ‘acquisition’， learners would have a sense of correctness， which means they may judge a sentence correct because they think it sounds right or feels no problem. On the opposite， ‘learning’ is referring to understanding the language rules， being sensitive to the grammatical phenomenon， and utilizing them properly （Krashen， 1995）. It proposes that acquired competence is the consequence of language acquisition， learners may focus on the language for communication regardless of its rules， in other words， students are likely to pay much attention to the communicative act of their utterances， and they might even absorb grammatical information by drawing on people around them. On the contrary， ‘learning’ may engender knowledge of language which is known to most people like grammar rules， and it may enable people to obtain clear and systematic ‘images’ of the target language.
The dear distinction between ‘acquisition’ and ‘learning’ has indeed influenced the world of English Language Teaching. In general， the subconscious process of ‘acquisition’ has generated the audio-lingual method， which is identified with a parrot-fashion style. In the traditional teaching and learning process， grammar-translation which emphasizes language accuracy is widely applied into writing and reading teaching； however， it is not practical enough to meet the demand of listening and speaking tasks. Therefore， according to the theory of language acquisition， audio-lingual method is produced. Students are expected to mimic the dialogue via choral or pairs practise until finally remember it. Lado （1964） has mentioned that “the focus of students is not on the new structure through the audio-lingual pattern drills” （as cited in Krashen， 1995， p.132）. For instance， the learner may learn a new word by replacing one part of the model sentence which is made by the teacher， and it may be unnecessary for teachers to illustrate and explain all target structures of the second language. Krashen （1982） declares that students are supposed to over-learn various patterns so as to use them directly in communicative performance. In addition， student-centred instead of teacher-centred has been of common concern in the world of English Language Teaching. ‘Learning’ needs many an instruction form teachers； thus， the teachers seem to be the core of the classes， while students usually play a role as a machine to taking notes. By comparison， according to Krashen （1995）， ‘acquisition’ requests learners to repeat the target language while teachers are expected to be monitors. To be specific， error correction would not be directly pointing out the errors made by learners， but repeating the utterance correctly. In brief， the main differences between ‘acquisition’ and ‘learning’ could be analysed from three aspects： feature， process and result. The distinctive difference would perhaps be that ‘acquisition’ is a subconscious process while ‘learning’ is a conscious experience based on Krashen’s Acquisition-Learning hypothesis. Moreover， the distinction has changed the world of English Teaching by developing the grammar-translation methodology to the Audiolingualism， and stressing the significance of student-centred as well.
References
Ellis， R. （1992）. Second language acquisition and language pedagogy. Melksham： Cromwell Press.
Krashen， S. （1995）. Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Hertfordshire： Prentice Hall Europe.
Krashen， S. （1981）. Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford： Pergamon Press Ltd..
Lado， R. （1964）. Language teaching： A scientific approach. New York ： McGran Hill.
McLaughlin， B. （1987）. Theories of second language learning. London： Edward Arnold.
Mitchell， R.， & Myles F. （2004）. Second language learning theories. London： Arnold.
Towell， R.， & Hawkins， R. （1994）. Approaches to second language acquisition. Adelaide： Multilingual Matters Ltd.
作者簡介：王馨若，女，出生于1991年6月，四川达州人，四川大学锦城学院助教，文学硕士，主要从事大学英语教育和跨文化交际研究。