Language learning is an incredibly rewarding journey. Few experiences compare to the thrill of connecting with someone in a language that was once foreign and unintelligible. Yet, alongside the excitement of progress, language acquisition can often be filled with frustration, misunderstandings, and moments of self-doubt. Many learners wonder: What Is The Best Way To Learn A Language to minimize these challenges and maximize success?
My own language learning journey has been largely shaped by personal experiences. From a challenging year abroad grappling with French in college to a more successful experiment of learning four languages in a single year while traveling, I’ve learned a great deal through trial and error. This hands-on approach, while valuable, lacked the insights of systematic research. Recently, I decided to delve into the science of second language acquisition, exploring studies and expert opinions on effective learning strategies. Patsy Lightbown and Nina Spada’s book, How Languages are Learned, proved to be an invaluable resource, offering a comprehensive overview of the field.
Evaluating Different Language Learning Approaches
Lightbown and Spada’s book, designed as a guide for language teachers, provides a broad examination of research in language acquisition. One particularly insightful chapter analyzes six popular language learning approaches, weighing the evidence for and against each. Understanding these different perspectives can offer valuable guidance for anyone seeking the most effective path to language fluency.
1. Accuracy First: The Grammar-Focused Method
Historically, the dominant approach to language teaching was rooted in grammar and accuracy. The classical method, for instance, emphasized translation, requiring students to memorize vocabulary lists and grammatical rules to decipher texts in languages like Latin or Greek. While this approach might have served the purpose of literary appreciation, it often fell short in developing practical communication skills needed for modern language use, such as speaking French or Spanish.
The audio-lingual method, inspired by behaviorist psychology, emerged as a reaction against the text-heavy classical approach. It aimed to instill correct language habits through repetitive drills and pattern practice. Students were expected to mimic teacher-provided examples and produce grammatically accurate sentences from the outset, preventing the formation of “bad” language habits.
Accuracy-first methods have been a mainstay in language classrooms for decades. However, research has increasingly challenged some of their fundamental assumptions:
- Language is not simply imitation: Effective communication involves generating novel sentences to express unique meanings. The rote repetition characteristic of audio-lingual methods may not accurately reflect the dynamic nature of real language acquisition.
- Language development follows a natural progression: Studies suggest that language learners, including second language learners, acquire grammatical structures in a predictable sequence, regardless of teaching methods. This implies that completely avoiding errors might be an unrealistic and potentially counterproductive goal in the learning process.
- Classroom accuracy doesn’t always translate to spontaneous communication: Research indicates a complex relationship between classroom learning and real-world language use. One study cited in How Languages are Learned found that students intensively trained on a specific grammatical pattern did use it more frequently, but also made more errors in other aspects of their language production, suggesting a potential trade-off between focused accuracy and overall fluency.
Furthermore, Noam Chomsky’s influential critique of B.F. Skinner’s behaviorist theories of language acquisition prompted researchers to explore alternative frameworks for understanding how languages are learned, moving away from purely accuracy-focused approaches.
2. Input is Key: Learning Through Listening and Reading
Stephen Krashen, a prominent figure in second language acquisition theory, strongly criticized the “accuracy first” approach. His Input Hypothesis proposed that grammar drills and repetitive exercises are not only ineffective but also largely irrelevant for genuine language acquisition. Instead, Krashen argued that comprehensible input is the sole essential ingredient for language learning.
In this context, “input” refers to language that learners understand through listening or reading, focusing on meaning rather than grammatical analysis. Examples of input include books, street signs, conversations, and podcasts – anything you engage with to grasp meaning. Conversely, copying sentences from a textbook or completing grammar exercises would not be considered input in Krashen’s framework.
Input-based approaches offer several appealing advantages. Grammar drills can be tedious, and opportunities for speaking practice can be limited and anxiety-inducing. In contrast, readily available resources like books, audio recordings, and online content provide abundant input opportunities. Notably, a study mentioned in How Languages are Learned found that students in input-rich classrooms achieved comparable or even superior results to those in traditional, grammar-focused classes after two years, even in speaking proficiency, despite minimal direct speaking practice.
However, the more extreme claims of Krashen’s hypothesis have been challenged by research. Studies on French immersion students in Canada, who are immersed in a high-input environment, revealed that while they develop near-native comprehension skills, they often continue to make grammatical errors in speaking, even after years of immersion. This suggests that while input is crucial, explicit instruction on grammar and language structures can also play a significant role in achieving accuracy.
3. The Power of Interaction: Speaking as a Learning Tool
Another perspective emphasizes the importance of interactive communication, suggesting that language learning requires more than just passive input. Merrill Swain’s Output Hypothesis and Michael Long’s Interaction Hypothesis both challenge Krashen’s input-centric view. Swain proposed that the need to produce language, to express oneself in the target language, is a critical driver of language learning. Long further argued that meaningful interactions, not just input alone, are essential for successful language acquisition.
Interaction-based approaches offer distinct benefits. Conversation partners naturally adjust their language level to ensure understanding, creating comprehensible input dynamically tailored to the learner’s needs. This contrasts with fixed materials like books or audio recordings, where finding the “just right” level of difficulty can be challenging.
Moreover, 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 attempts. This experimental learning process is less readily available in purely input-based or drill-focused methods.
However, interaction-only approaches, without any explicit grammar instruction, might hinder the development of grammatical accuracy. Conversation partners typically prioritize understanding over correcting grammatical errors, especially when the intended meaning is clear. Furthermore, learners may not always effectively utilize subtle forms of corrective feedback, such as when a partner rephrases their incorrect utterance correctly.
4. Learning Languages Incidentally: Immersion in Context
Time is a significant constraint in language learning. Native language acquisition in children typically involves tens of thousands of hours of exposure. Adult learners with limited time often struggle to replicate this level of immersion.
One strategy to overcome this time constraint is to integrate language learning with other learning objectives. In such programs, the target language becomes the medium of instruction for other subjects, rather than being taught as a separate subject itself.
French immersion programs in Canada are a prime example of this approach’s success. Starting in kindergarten, students whose native language is English receive their entire academic curriculum in French. By grade 12, they often achieve near-native fluency in French while maintaining academic parity with their peers in English-medium schools.
While immersion programs can be highly effective, Lightbown and Spada point out potential limitations:
- Time to academic proficiency: It can take several years for students to achieve academic success in a new language, suggesting that immersion might be less effective when started later in life or when 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 pressure on students.
- Potential for grammatical inaccuracies: As mentioned earlier, immersion alone may not guarantee native-level grammatical accuracy if learners lack sufficient opportunities for focused practice and explicit language instruction.
5. Sequential Learning: Following a Natural Order
In the late 1980s, research by Manfred Pienemann and his colleagues revealed that language acquisition is not a free-for-all process. They demonstrated that second language learners, similar to children acquiring their first language, acquire grammatical rules in a fixed developmental sequence, regardless of the order in which they are taught. This concept is central to Processability Theory.
According to this perspective, some aspects of language, such as vocabulary acquisition, can be learned relatively flexibly at any point. However, other features, particularly grammatical structures – for example, the use of “did” to form questions in English (e.g., “Where did you put it?”) – follow a predictable developmental path.
This sequential approach challenges the accuracy-first method. If certain grammatical errors are simply markers of developmental stages that cannot be bypassed, then relentless error correction might be unproductive or even detrimental.
However, Lightbown and Spada argue that the key takeaway from this research is not that grammar instruction is ineffective, but rather that it is most beneficial when aligned with the learner’s natural developmental stage. Instruction should ideally target grammatical features that learners are developmentally ready to acquire.
6. Balancing Accuracy and Fluency: “Getting it Right in the End”
Drawing on the insights from the various approaches and decades of accumulated research, Lightbown and Spada advocate for a balanced approach that avoids the extremes of past language learning trends.
- Meaningful language use from the start: Contrary to purely accuracy-focused methods like the audio-lingual approach, learners should have opportunities to use the language for meaningful communication from the beginning of their learning journey.
- Integrating form and meaning: While pure input, interaction, or immersion can be valuable, most learners benefit from some degree of explicit attention to language forms and structures to achieve higher levels of accuracy.
Lightbown and Spada cite numerous studies demonstrating that explicit instruction and focused practice on specific grammatical patterns can lead to significant improvements in learners’ accuracy. However, they also emphasize that genuine communicative practice is indispensable for developing real-world language proficiency. Effective language learning, therefore, involves a dynamic interplay between focused study and meaningful application.
Reflecting on a Personal Approach to Language Learning
Reading about these theories and the lively debates surrounding them has been particularly interesting as my own language learning methodology doesn’t neatly fit into any single category.
My preferred approach involves a period of “no English,” immersing myself in the target language and shifting the majority of my communication to that language. This aligns most closely with the interactionist perspective, emphasizing the crucial role of conversation and active language use in developing proficiency, rather than relying solely on drills or passive input.
However, reflecting on my experiences, I also recognize the value of traditional grammar practice, flashcards for vocabulary acquisition, and corrective feedback. In each language I’ve learned, I have incorporated these elements into my study routine.
My mental model of language learning is that more structured practice often serves as an effective starting point for grasping new vocabulary or grammatical concepts. However, it is through real-world communication that these elements are reinforced and internalized, becoming automatic and effortless. Only at more advanced stages of fluency have I found myself consistently acquiring new language patterns primarily through interaction.
I may have previously underestimated the potential of learning through reading and listening alone. While I remain unconvinced by the more extreme proponents of input-only approaches who advocate for avoiding speaking and explicit instruction altogether, I acknowledge the significant findings that demonstrate learners can develop speaking skills even with limited speaking practice. This is particularly relevant in learning contexts where speaking opportunities are scarce or challenging to access.
Language learning remains a captivating and occasionally perplexing endeavor. I appreciate Lightbown and Spada’s comprehensive and research-based exploration of the science behind it, providing valuable insights into the multifaceted question: what is the best way to learn a language?
