Language learning is an incredibly rewarding journey. The ability to communicate with someone in a language that was once foreign opens up exciting new worlds and connections. While the triumphs are exhilarating, the path to fluency is often paved with challenges, frustrations, and the occasional embarrassing mistake.
Much of our understanding of language acquisition comes from personal experience. Many have navigated the complexities of learning a new language, sometimes with more success than others. While personal experimentation is valuable, delving into the science of second language acquisition offers deeper insights into what truly works. Patsy Lightbown and Nina Spada’s book, How Languages are Learned, provides an excellent overview of research in this field, particularly their analysis of popular language learning approaches.
Evaluating Different Language Learning Approaches: What Works Best?
Lightbown and Spada’s work, designed as a guide for language educators, explores a wide range of language acquisition research. Their chapter summarizing six prominent language learning methodologies and the evidence supporting or refuting them offers valuable perspectives for anyone seeking the Best Way To Learn A New Language.
1. Accuracy First: The Grammar and Translation Method
Historically, the dominant approach to language teaching was rooted in translation. Students were presented with vocabulary lists and grammar rules, tasked with translating classical texts like Latin or Greek. While this method might foster an appreciation for ancient literature and develop analytical skills, it often falls short of the communicative goals of modern language learners aiming to speak French, Spanish, or Mandarin. This accuracy-first method prioritized grammatical precision from the outset.
Emerging from behaviorist psychology, the audio-lingual method sought to revolutionize language teaching. It replaced the text-heavy approach with a dynamic call-and-response format. The core idea was that students would develop correct sentence structures by strictly imitating teacher-provided examples. By emphasizing accuracy from the beginning, the method aimed to prevent the development of “bad” speaking habits.
Accuracy-first methodologies have been a classroom staple for decades. However, researchers began to question some of their fundamental assumptions, leading to a decline in their favor:
- Language Use is Creative, Not Just Imitative: We don’t simply mimic; we generate novel sentences to express unique thoughts and meanings. The repetitive nature of audio-lingual drills may not mirror the spontaneous and creative nature of real language acquisition. The best way to learn a new language might not be through rote memorization.
- Developmental Stages in Language Acquisition: Language learning, including second language acquisition, follows a developmental timeline. Learners seem to acquire grammatical patterns in a predictable order, regardless of teaching methods. This suggests that completely avoiding errors might be an unrealistic and even counterproductive goal. Mistakes are a natural part of learning.
- Classroom Learning vs. Spontaneous Language Use: The connection between structured classroom learning and natural, spontaneous language use is complex. Studies have shown that while intensive instruction on a specific grammatical pattern might lead to its increased use, it can paradoxically result in more errors in other sentence structures. This highlights the challenge of transferring isolated grammatical knowledge to holistic language competence.
Furthermore, Noam Chomsky’s influential critique of B.F. Skinner’s behaviorist language theory spurred researchers to explore alternative approaches, moving away from the accuracy-first paradigm.
2. Input is All You Need: Comprehensible Input Theory
Stephen Krashen emerged as a prominent critic of the “accuracy first” approach. His Input Hypothesis proposed a radical shift in perspective: grammar drills and repetitive practice are not only inefficient but fundamentally ineffective for genuine language acquisition. Krashen argued that comprehensible input is the sole essential ingredient for language learning.
Comprehensible input refers to language that learners understand for meaning, whether through listening or reading, without focusing on grammatical analysis. A captivating book, an informative street sign, or an engaging conversation all constitute input, as long as the learner is actively trying to understand the message. Conversely, rote copying sentences from a textbook does not qualify as meaningful input. The best way to learn a new language, according to this theory, is through immersion in understandable content.
Input-based approaches have inherent appeal. Grammar drills can be tedious, and authentic speaking opportunities can be stressful and limited. In contrast, books, podcasts, and online content offer readily accessible and enjoyable learning resources. Remarkably, a study revealed that students in input-based classes achieved comparable or even superior results to those in traditional classes, including in speaking proficiency, despite minimal explicit speaking practice.
However, some research challenges the more extreme claims of Krashen’s hypothesis. Studies on French immersion students, who are exposed to vast amounts of input, demonstrate that while they attain near-native comprehension levels, they often persist in making grammatical errors in spoken French, even after years of full immersion. This suggests that while input is crucial, explicit instruction on grammar and language structures may also play a vital role in achieving accuracy.
3. Talking is Everything: The Interaction Hypothesis
Another prominent language learning theory emphasizes the importance of interactive communication, rather than solely relying on input. Merrill Swain’s Output Hypothesis builds upon Krashen’s input theory, arguing that the need to produce language, particularly to express complex ideas, is a significant driver of language acquisition. Similarly, Michael Long’s Interaction Hypothesis posits that meaningful interactions, not just passive input, are essential for effective learning. The best way to learn a new language, from this perspective, involves active engagement in conversation.
Interaction-based approaches offer several key advantages. Conversation partners naturally adjust their language level to ensure understanding, creating a personalized and supportive learning environment. This contrasts with fixed materials like books or audio recordings, where finding the “just right” level of difficulty can be challenging.
Furthermore, genuine communication provides learners with opportunities to test their hypotheses about how the language works and receive immediate feedback based on their communicative success or failure. Approaches focused solely on input or drills lack this crucial element of experimentation and real-time correction.
However, purely interaction-based approaches, without any explicit grammar instruction, might hinder the development of accurate speaking habits. Conversation partners typically prioritize understanding over grammatical correctness and may not correct errors if the meaning is clear. Additionally, learners may not always consciously recognize or effectively utilize subtle forms of corrective feedback, such as when a partner repeats an incorrect utterance back in the correct form.
4. Learn a Language on the Side: Integrating Language with Content
Time is a significant constraint in language learning. Native language acquisition occurs over tens of thousands of hours of exposure during childhood. How can adult learners, often with limited time, effectively compete with this level of immersion, especially with only a few hours of dedicated study per week?
One innovative solution is to integrate language learning with other learning objectives. In these integrated programs, the language is not taught as a separate subject but becomes the medium of instruction for other academic content. This approach maximizes exposure and contextualizes language learning within meaningful activities.
French immersion programs in Canada are a highly successful example. Starting in kindergarten, English-speaking students receive their entire academic curriculum in French, rather than English. By grade 12, these students often achieve near-native French proficiency while maintaining academic parity with their peers in English-medium schools. For children, immersion might be the best way to learn a new language.
Lightbown and Spada acknowledge the effectiveness of immersion programs but also highlight potential drawbacks:
- Time to Academic Proficiency: Students may require several years to achieve academic success in a new language. This approach might be less effective for older learners or in situations with limited immersion time. They cite English immersion programs in Hong Kong that faced challenges due to intense academic pressures.
- Speaking Accuracy in Immersion: As previously discussed, immersion programs alone may not guarantee native-level speaking accuracy if students lack sufficient opportunities for focused practice or explicit language instruction. Balanced immersion programs often incorporate targeted language teaching to address this.
5. Study in the Proper Sequence: Developmental Stages and Instruction
In the late 1980s, Manfred Pienemann and his colleagues made a significant discovery: the rules of a language are not learned in a random order. Second language learners, similar to children acquiring their first language, acquire grammatical rules in a fixed developmental sequence, regardless of the order of instruction. This concept is central to Processability Theory.
According to this perspective, certain aspects of language, such as vocabulary, can be taught at any point. However, other features, particularly grammatical structures like using auxiliary verbs to form questions in English (e.g., “Where did you put it?”), follow a predictable developmental path. Learners progress through stages of grammatical development, and instruction is most effective when aligned with these natural stages.
This approach directly challenges the “accuracy first” methodology. If certain errors are indicators of developmental stages that cannot be skipped, then relentless error correction might be counterproductive and even demotivating. Focusing on what learners are developmentally ready to acquire is key.
However, Lightbown and Spada emphasize that this research does not imply that grammar instruction is ineffective. Instead, the crucial takeaway is that grammar instruction is most beneficial when it aligns with the learner’s natural developmental progression. Teaching grammatical features that learners are developmentally ready to acquire can significantly accelerate their progress.
6. “Get it Right in the End”: A Balanced and Comprehensive Approach
Drawing upon the various approaches and decades of research, Lightbown and Spada advocate for a balanced approach to language learning, moving beyond the extremes of past language learning trends. The best way to learn a new language is likely not a single method, but a combination of effective strategies.
- Meaningful Language Use from the Start: In contrast to purely accuracy-focused methods, learners should have opportunities to use the language for meaningful communication from the beginning. Language is a tool for communication, and practice in real-world contexts is vital.
- Integration of Form and Meaning: While rejecting purely input-based, interaction-based, or immersion-based approaches as sole solutions, they emphasize that most learners benefit from some explicit attention to language forms and structures to achieve accuracy. Grammar instruction, when appropriately timed and integrated with communicative practice, plays a valuable role.
Lightbown and Spada cite numerous studies demonstrating that explicit instruction and focused practice on specific grammatical patterns significantly improve learner performance. However, they also underscore that genuine communicative practice is indispensable for developing real-world language proficiency. Fluency emerges from the interplay of knowledge and practical application.
Reflecting on a Personal Language Learning Journey
Exploring these diverse theories and the debates they have sparked is particularly interesting when considering personal language learning experiences. Many individual approaches to language learning don’t neatly fit into any single theoretical framework.
One effective personal method is to adopt a “no English” period, immersing oneself in the target language and switching communication entirely or predominantly to the new language. This aligns most closely with the interactionist perspective, emphasizing the importance of conversation and active language use for proficiency.
However, reflecting on these experiences reveals that traditional elements like grammar practice, flashcards, and corrective feedback also played crucial roles. In learning various languages, incorporating these more structured exercises proved invaluable.
A useful mental model for language learning is that formal practice often provides the initial foundation for understanding new vocabulary and grammatical structures. However, real communicative situations offer the necessary context and repetition for these patterns to become automatic and effortless. Only at advanced levels of fluency does spontaneous learning through interaction become the primary mode of acquisition.
It’s also important to recognize the potential of reading and listening alone. While not fully embracing the Krashenian view that speaking and explicit instruction should be avoided, the evidence suggests that significant language acquisition can occur through comprehensible input, especially in situations where speaking opportunities are limited or stressful.
Language learning remains a fascinating and occasionally challenging endeavor. Lightbown and Spada’s comprehensive exploration of the scientific understanding of language acquisition offers valuable insights for both learners and educators seeking the best way to learn a new language.
