Language Acquisition and Language Learning

I appeal to the utmost understanding of my readers and listeners if my reflection today appears
like a reaction paper and puts the spotlight on two prominent and influential personalities and
their claims in relation to language acquisition and learning. Their words simply struck me and
stimulated my thoughts about the topic. And as a disclaimer, allow me to say that my respect
and admiration for them remain undiminished. Nelson Mandela once said, “If you talk to a man
in a language he understands, that goes to his head. If you talk to him in his own language, that
goes to his heart.” Stephen Krashen validated the claim of the eminent statesman with his own
declaration which says, “Language is best taught when it is being used to transmit messages,
not
when it is explicitly taught for conscious learning.” Would you dare oppose the standpoints of a
highly regarded political figure and a prominent linguist? To some extent and with due respect to
the two gentlemen, I would. When both attach more importance to language acquisition than to
language learning, here is an unknown classroom teacher who sees the equal value of both
language acquisition and language learning. I do not totally disagree with them; it is only on the
thought that their statements apparently give more weight and value to language acquisition.
Allow me to prove my point by stating first some definitions of language acquisition and
language
learning.

After having consolidated the various definitions made by experts, I have come up with this
description of language acquisition. Language acquisition is the subconscious, instinctive and
effortless learning of languages. It is the product of real-life interactions and everyday use of a
language between people in an environment of the target language and culture, where the
learner develops his communicative ability. The learner acquires knowledge of the structure of
the language through actual use.

On the other hand, language learning is the acquisition of language through conscious study
and analysis of the language as a system, from phonemes to morphemes, to syntax, to
semantics and so on. The language is taught oftentimes formally in the classroom or other
learning modes and venues. I perfectly understand Mandela and Krashen for considering
language acquisition apparently more important than language learning. Understandably, the
statements are coming from the perspectives of political activists, public speakers, and a linguist
whose focus is more on the spoken language rather than the written language. Conversely, I
totally subscribe to the idea
that both language learning and language acquisition are integral parts of the unity of all
language (Robbins, 2007: 49). Hence, there must be equal provision of activities and
opportunities for the learners to gain both acquisition and learning.

As a teacher of a second language, I have always aimed at teaching or facilitating learning for
the development of both oral and written communication skills in the target language which is
English. I would feel like a complete flop if I would treat spoken language secondary to written
language or vice versa. I am also aware that I cater for the varying needs and intelligences of
my students. There are just some of them who would not produce their best outputs in speaking
the language no matter how much exposure to the English-speaking environment they have
simply because it is their waterloo or not their inclination, or their personality is not fit for public
speaking; in the same way, there are those who could deliver very well orally in the target
language but do not perform as satisfactorily in the written form. I might not fully unearth the full
potential of the not-so outspoken ones if most activities are geared mostly towards developing
listening and speaking skills. I see some risk in focusing more on language acquisition; if the
learner is in an environment
where the language he/she hears is spoken by people who aren’t conscious of the rules of
grammar and syntax and concerned totally not with the form but solely with the message they
are conveying, then the learners will most likely learn the same way of structuring the language.
This is the evidence that many native speakers often use their language with ungrammatical
structures, which to linguists like Krashen is not a big deal. While I understand the position of
linguists that exposing the language learner to the natural environment is more important, I
would like to stress my point from the perspective of a teacher of a second language. I am not
just facilitating learning to make my students develop fluency and comprehension; I am here to
also help my students discover their other potentials. I am not only teaching future politicians,
preachers, lecturers, and motivational speakers but also future book authors, writers, journalists,
scriptwriters, novelists, essayists, and the like. I believe I must strike balance between allowing
my students to learn the language both through acquisition and formal and conscious learning
of the language and its use.

I see a never-ending wrangle and clash of opinions between linguists and grammarians. I am
not the type of a go-between and neutral thinker at all times, but as a language teacher, I would
like to take both the stance of a linguist and a grammar expert. Yes, it is important to teach the
learner to acquire a language through regular exposure to the natural language-speaking
environment. But I also believe in the importance of learning the correct and grammatical
language and form which the learners may acquire through conscious effort made by language
teachers in the classroom. It is just equally important; after all, how can you take someone
seriously if he/she leaves you a note saying, “Your wrong”?

References:
Brown, H.D. (2007). Principles of language learning and teaching (5th ed.). White Plains: Pearson Education.
http://angol.uni-miskolc.hu/wp-content/media/2016/10/Principles_of_language_learning.pdf
Brown, S. & Larson-Hall, J. (2012). Second language acquisition myths:
https://www.press.umich.edu/4392941/second_language_acquisition_myths
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2000). Techniques and principles in language learning (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford
University Press.
Lightbown, P.M. & Spada, N. (2006). How languages are learned (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Richards, J.C. & Rodgers, T.S. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching (2nd ed.). Cambridge,
U.K.: Cambridge University Press
Igiri, ThankGod Ogba , Ph.D, et. al. “Language Learning and Language Acquisition: A Study of Formal and
Informal Communication Situations in the English Language.” IOSR Journal of
Humanities and Social Science (IOSR-JHSS), 25(7), 2020, pp. 27-33
http://www.iosrjournals.org/iosr-jhss/papers/Vol.25-Issue7/Series-12/D2507122733.pdf