Language learning can be an incredibly rewarding journey. Few experiences match the thrill of connecting with someone in a language that was once foreign and incomprehensible. However, this exciting process can also be challenging, filled with frustrations, misunderstandings, and moments of embarrassment.
Much of my understanding of language learning comes from personal experience. My initial attempts to learn French during a study abroad year were quite challenging. Later, I found more success learning four languages within a year while traveling, as documented in my project learning four different languages in a year.
Despite years of self-experimentation, I realized I hadn’t delved into the scientific research on effective language learning strategies. To bridge this gap, I recently explored books focused on the science of second language acquisition. One particularly insightful book was Patsy Lightbown and Nina Spada’s “How Languages are Learned“.
This book, designed as a guide for language teachers, offers a comprehensive overview of language acquisition research. I found the chapter analyzing six popular language learning approaches, along with their supporting evidence and drawbacks, to be particularly enlightening when thinking about the best way to learn a language.
Evaluating Six Different Approaches to Language Learning
1. Accuracy First: Is Grammar the Key?
The classical approach to language education often emphasized accuracy from the outset. This method, rooted in translation exercises, involved students memorizing vocabulary and grammatical rules, then applying them to translate texts, often from Latin or Greek. While this might have served the purpose of literary appreciation, it starkly contrasts with the communicative goals of modern language learners aiming to speak French or Spanish in real-world scenarios.
Inspired by behaviorist psychology, the audio-lingual method emerged as a reaction against this text-heavy approach. It advocated for a structured, repetitive format of call-and-response drills. The core idea was that by consistently practicing correct patterns from the beginning, learners would avoid developing bad speaking habits.
Accuracy-focused methods have been a mainstay in language classrooms for a long time. However, researchers began to question some of the fundamental assumptions underpinning these approaches:
- Language Use is Creative, Not Just Imitative: We don’t simply mimic; we actively create new sentences to express our thoughts. The heavy repetition characteristic of audio-lingual methods might not truly reflect how we naturally acquire and use language.
- Language Acquisition Follows a Developmental Path: Research indicates that learners acquire grammatical structures in a predictable order, regardless of teaching methods. This suggests that aiming for perfect accuracy from the very beginning might be unrealistic and even counterproductive.
- Classroom Learning and Spontaneous Language Use Are Distinct: One study mentioned in “How Languages are Learned” revealed that while students rigorously trained on a specific grammatical pattern did use it more frequently, they also made more errors in other aspects of their language production.
Perhaps the most significant challenge to behaviorist theories came from Noam Chomsky’s influential critique of B. F. Skinner’s behaviorist model of language acquisition. Chomsky’s work pushed researchers towards exploring alternative frameworks for understanding how languages are learned, moving away from the strict focus on accuracy-first methods.
2. Input Immersion: Can You Learn Just by Listening?
Stephen Krashen stands out as a prominent critic of the “accuracy first” paradigm. His Input Hypothesis boldly proposed that traditional grammar drills and repetitive exercises are not only inefficient but fundamentally ineffective for genuine language acquisition.
Krashen’s theory emphasizes comprehensible input as the sole essential element for language learning. Input, in this context, refers to language that learners listen to or read with the primary goal of understanding meaning, rather than analyzing grammatical structures. Examples of input include engaging with a book, understanding a street sign, or participating in a conversation to grasp the message. In contrast, simply copying sentences from a textbook wouldn’t qualify as meaningful input.
Input-based methods have a clear appeal. Drills can be tedious, speaking opportunities can be stressful and limited, but access to books and audio recordings is readily available. Interestingly, a study cited in Lightbown and Spada’s book indicated that students in an input-focused classroom, over two years, performed as well as, or even better than, students in traditional classes, even in speaking skills—despite minimal 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 language input, revealed that while they achieve near-native comprehension, they still make grammatical errors in speaking, even after years of immersion. This suggests that while input is crucial, learners also benefit from explicit instruction on the formal aspects of language, such as grammar rules.
3. Speak Up: Is Talking the Most Important Thing?
Another perspective on effective language learning emphasizes the importance of interactive communication, not just passive input. Merrill Swain’s Output Hypothesis offers a counterpoint to Krashen’s Input Hypothesis. Swain argued that the very act of needing to express complex ideas in a new language can be a powerful driver of language learning. Similarly, Michael Long’s Interaction Hypothesis posits that meaningful interactions, rather than just receiving input, are essential for language development.
One key advantage of interaction-based approaches is the natural adaptability of conversation partners. They intuitively adjust their language level to ensure understanding from the learner. This contrasts with fixed materials like books or audio recordings, where finding the “just right” level of difficulty is crucial but can be challenging.
Furthermore, genuine communication provides learners with opportunities to test their hypotheses about how the language works and receive immediate feedback through the success or failure of their communication. Approaches that solely focus on input or drills lack this crucial element of active experimentation and feedback.
However, purely interaction-based approaches, without any formal grammar instruction, might hinder the development of accurate speaking habits. Conversation partners often prioritize understanding over correcting grammatical errors, and learners may miss subtle forms of feedback, such as when a partner repeats back a grammatically correct version of their incorrect utterance without explicitly pointing out the mistake.
4. Learning Languages Passively: Integrating Language Study with Other Subjects
Time constraints are a significant factor in language learning. Native language acquisition for children involves tens of thousands of hours of exposure. How can adult learners, often with limited time, effectively compete with this level of immersion, especially with only a few hours per week dedicated to formal study?
One innovative solution is to integrate language learning with other academic pursuits. In these programs, the target language isn’t taught as a separate subject but becomes the medium of instruction for other subjects, such as math, science, or history.
French immersion programs in Canada are a prime example of this successful approach. Starting in kindergarten, English-speaking students receive their entire academic curriculum in French instead of English. By the end of Grade 12, these students often achieve near-native fluency in French while maintaining the same academic level as their peers in English-medium schools.
Lightbown and Spada acknowledge the effectiveness of such programs but also point out potential limitations:
- Time to Academic Proficiency: Students might require several years to achieve academic success in a new language. This suggests that immersion might be less effective if started later in life or if learners have insufficient time to adapt to the new language of instruction. The authors cite examples of English immersion programs in Hong Kong that faced challenges due to intense academic pressures on students.
- Speaking Accuracy: As mentioned earlier, immersion programs might not always result in native-like speaking accuracy if students lack sufficient opportunities for focused practice or if explicit language instruction is lacking.
5. Sequential Learning: Does Order Matter in Language Acquisition?
In the late 1980s, Manfred Pienemann and his colleagues made a significant discovery: the grammatical rules of a language are not learned in a random order. Similar to children acquiring their first language, second language learners acquire grammatical structures in a fixed developmental sequence that is largely unaffected by teaching methods.
According to this perspective, certain language features, such as vocabulary, can be taught at any point. However, other features, like the use of “did” to form questions in English (e.g., “Where did you put it?”), follow a predictable developmental sequence.
This approach directly contradicts the accuracy-first method. If some errors are simply a natural part of developmental stages that cannot be skipped, constantly focusing on error correction might be unproductive and even demotivating.
However, Lightbown and Spada argue that the key takeaway from this research isn’t that grammar instruction is ineffective, but rather that it’s most beneficial when delivered in a sequence that aligns with the learner’s natural developmental progression. Understanding this sequence can help educators tailor their instruction for optimal impact.
6. Balanced Approach: Getting it Right in the End by Combining Methods
After reviewing these diverse approaches and decades of accumulated research, Lightbown and Spada advocate for a balanced perspective, moving away from the extreme positions of past language learning trends. They suggest avoiding the pitfalls of overly rigid approaches, such as the audio-lingual method, while incorporating valuable elements from different methodologies to create a more holistic and effective strategy for how to best learn a language.
- Meaningful Language Use from the Start: In contrast to accuracy-first methods, learners should have opportunities to use the language for meaningful communication from the beginning of their learning journey.
- Value of Explicit Grammar Focus: While not advocating for grammar as the sole focus, they argue that most learners benefit from some explicit attention to language forms to achieve higher levels of accuracy in their speech.
The authors cite numerous studies demonstrating that learners can significantly improve their performance with specific grammatical patterns when those patterns are explicitly taught and practiced. However, they also emphasize that genuine language proficiency is unlikely to develop without ample time spent in meaningful communication and real-world language use. Finding the right balance between focused study and communicative practice is key to effective language learning.
Reflecting on My Approach to Language Learning
Reading about these varied theories and the passionate debates they have sparked has been particularly interesting, partly because my own language learning approach doesn’t neatly fit into any single category.
My preferred method involves a period of “no English” immersion, where I switch the majority of my communication to the target language. This aligns most closely with the interactionist perspective, emphasizing the importance of conversations, not just drills or passive input, for achieving fluency.
However, reflecting on my experiences, I also recognize the value of traditional elements like grammar practice, flashcards, and corrective feedback. In every language I’ve learned, I’ve incorporated these more structured exercises.
My mental model of language learning is that formal practice often serves as an effective starting point for understanding new vocabulary or grammatical structures. However, situations requiring genuine communication are essential for reinforcing these patterns in diverse contexts, ultimately leading to effortless and automatic language use. It’s only at more advanced levels of fluency that I find myself consistently acquiring new language patterns solely through interaction.
I might have previously underestimated the potential of learning through reading and listening alone. While I remain unconvinced by Krashen’s view that speaking and explicit instruction should be avoided, the research showing that learners can develop speaking ability even without extensive speaking practice is significant, especially in situations where speaking opportunities are limited or challenging to access.
Language learning continues to be a fascinating and occasionally challenging pursuit. I found Lightbown and Spada’s detailed exploration of the scientific discoveries in this field to be both insightful and valuable in understanding what truly constitutes the best way to learn a language.
