Factors Affecting Language Learning

Factors that block or prevent language learning



Aside from obvious physical impediments such as poor vision or deafness, a wide range of factors are claimed to block or to prevent language learning. These include attributes peculiar to the student: for example, age, aptitude, attitude and motivation. But, language learning is also impacted by external factors like context, culture, mother-tongue (L1) interference, teacher and teaching style, resources, time and others. In this task, I will look at both internal and external ‘blocks’.

As Jeremy Harmer notes and as we have probably experienced, young children have an amazing facility at acquiring their first language and other languages (2007: 15). By contrast, adults appear to experience more difficulty when learning languages. Age is popularly seen as the greatest impediment to language learning. This phenomenon is attributed to a number of highly contentious reasons and bears closer scrutiny.

In 1967 Eric Lenneberg popularized the idea that there is a ‘critical period’ during which children acquire language easily. This period is a function of brain physiology and is sometimes termed ‘brain plasticity’. Studies in brain-damaged subjects and feral children appear to support the biological hypothesis. More recent studies, though, are less sympathetic suggesting that even though some aspects of Second Language Acquisition (SLA) are affected by age, others are exempt. Even Krashen, the doyenne of SLA thinking, has challenged the length of time that cerebral plasticity may allow for enhanced acquisition or learning.

My own view is that children are usually less inhibited than adults and are more willing to mimic, improvise, experiment in and use a new language. Moreover, without strongly embedded L1 syntactic structures, young children are probably more amenable to actions and activities that promote productive language skills. Adults, in comparison, may be more self-conscious. Their degree of linguistic fossilization in term of their L1 is greater since they have had long exposure in and engagement with receptive and productive language use. Many will also have developed analytical or meta-grammatical L1 knowledge which may prevent them from learning L2 (or L3) structures. Furthermore, adults are more likely to have strong ideas about appropriate teaching and learning styles. These, together with other attitudes and behaviours, may serve as ‘affective’ filters in second or foreign language learning. Here, too, neurological and neurobiological evidence has been cited by researchers as suggesting physiological determinants.

Arguably, ‘affective filters’ such as attitude, personality, concern for grammar, anxiety, the need for correctness, and motivation are a greater consideration in adults learning language than in children. Thus research has shown that extroverts learn languages more easily than introverts. Similarly, shy or reserved students are more likely to avoid contact with first language speakers of the target language than outgoing, sociable students . Logic dictates that immersion in authentic language situations and a willingness to use or to practise the target language will impact on learning and fluency. I would concede this point, but argue that the onus is on the trainer or teacher to create an environment in which effective language learning can take place. Whatever the circumstances, teaching should be appropriate to the age and developmental stage of the learner. Adults should not be patronized and children or adolescents should be taught in accordance with their respective life-phases.

Although theorists disagree, motivation – to my mind – is a powerful affective factor. Having had the experience of being forced to learn a language (Afrikaans) and wanting to learn a language (Portuguese), I can attest that the latter was more pleasurable and that as a learner my response was more receptive. At the same time, motivation as a factor impacting on language learning is a contested terrain. Various studies disagree on the relative importance of integrative or instrumental and intrinsic or extrinsic motivational factors. It could be argued that the teacher is (or needs to be) able to create the right circumstances for learning to take place even if the student is not particularly motivated. In terms of research, learners studying a language for integrative and internal reasons did not necessarily perform better that those who were motivated externally and functionally. Furthermore, MacIntyre (1988) shows that highly motivated learners often remain unwilling to communicate. This is bad news for acolytes of binary categorizations, but a salutary reminder that baldly assuming rigidly defined factors prevent language learning is dangerous.

The final ‘block’ that needs to be considered when focusing on the learner’s inherent traits is ability or aptitude. Here, work done by Noam Chomsky and Dell Hymes has played a major role. Accordingly, Chomsky’s competence-performance distinction argues that ‘performance’ (speaking and writing) is not necessarily an index of competence. From this perspective, competence is modeled on grammatical ‘correctness’ and is thus problematic. This posits a separation between language knowledge (which may be good) and communicative ability (which may be less accomplished). According to Chomsky, competence or language knowledge is a better index of language ability than performance. To take the argument one step forward, if we were using aptitude or innate ability as a factor influencing language learning, we would determine the individual’s language ability on how closely the user’s utterances meet the linguistic standard (for example, Standard British English) rather than according to the effectiveness of the communicative event. To counter the syntactic bias of Chomsky’s argument, other theorists have emphasized notions of communicative competence and language proficiency. In most TESOL situations, communicative competence is primary. The point is, though, that our measure of what constitutes good language learning will influence the criteria we identify as blocks to it.

Although I am inclined to follow Harmer’s advocacy of Multiple Intelligence theory (2006: 46) for establishing aptitude or not, I would caution that just because someone may be musically or mathematically intelligent he or she is not prevented from developing significant language abilities (L1, L2, L3 and others). Indeed, as language is primary to all knowledge, we probably have to recognize that although mathematics and the arts (alongside other intelligences) have their own ‘language-like’ structures, these are linked to, or supported by, conventional linguistics abilities – that is the ability to function in English, Chinese, Ghanaian or whatever the case may be. When language aptitude is not present – as in severe autism – non-linguistic intelligences are indicators of the idiot savant. Moreover, I would argue that so-called ‘intelligences’ are strongly connected to intrinsic and extrinsic determinants including physical and physiological characteristics, contextual and environmental factors, and socio-psychological, cultural and religious orientations. Deciding what makes someone ‘good at’ something is very complex.

While TESOL classrooms and practices are ideally learner-centred, it is the teacher-as-facilitator who is the integral component in any learning situation. Language teachers need to be aware of, and to overcome, the ‘blocks’ to language learning, whatever their source. Accordingly, alongside inherent factors I have listed a number of external ones even though, for example, the distinction between L1 interference as an internal or external factor is debatable. Nevertheless, matters aligned to culture, language origin, the learning and living context, teacher training, and pedagogy, amongst others, should be considered when talking about ‘blocks’ that may prevent language learning.

While it is dangerous to generalize or to indulge in stereotyping, the learner’s society, culture, religion, location, economic status, work circumstances and family relationships are potential impediments. Certainly, mother-tongue (L1) may be a major factor blocking or assisting learning. Students who already speak a Latinate (Italian, Spanish, etc) or Indo-Germanic (German, Swedish, etc) language are likely to find it easier to learn English than students who come from Semitic or ‘Oriental’ backgrounds. Not only is there some overlap in the sound-systems (phonology) of cognate languages, but orthographic, syntactic and semantic continuities will also be encountered. The TESOL class’s experience in learning Mandarin points to this. Yaseen and Zeenat, who both speak Arabic, found Mandarin Chinese sounds and tones far less daunting than their classmates, who are predominantly L1 speakers of English and L2 speakers of Latinate or classical languages. Of course, familiarity in one language does not imply that learning a related language will ever be easy. Carmen’s victory in the Mandarin challenge attests to this.

Interpersonal and inter-generational relationships also vary in intimacy, distance, and convention between cultural, social and religious groups. More significantly, behaviours based on these ‘belief’ systems and practices are likely to have been entrenched by prior educational experiences. Students accustomed to authoritarian; knowledge-based instruction may find that interactive and communicative pedagogies pose a significant challenge to language learning. Indeed, the block may be so substantial that it not only prevents learning, but also irreparably damages trust and the student-teacher relationship. Home and economic circumstances, exposure to media (for instance, television, music and magazines) in the target language, and the time available for learning may also inhibit or promote language learning. While the optimal environment may be total immersion, this might not be feasible.

The solution, to my mind, is not to capitulate to the source culture, prevailing circumstances, and/or learning style. The language teacher and school should provide suitable opportunities for students to encounter and practice the language that they wish to learn. In addition, the teacher needs gradually to accustom students to new pedagogic strategies without compromising the recipients’ belief systems or cultural traditions. (Indeed, changing the student from a recipient into a participant may be a crucial step in ensuring the efficacy of learning.) Cultural and religious disrespect is never justified by the claim that tradition prevents learning. Instead, the teacher has to create a safe, caring, supportive and comfortable environment in the classroom in order to counteract personal and social ‘affective’ blocks. This means adjusting to the needs of individual learners and groups. It also implies ongoing cultural sensitivity. I have not found any convincing evidence for inherent or culturally-determined language competence or incompetence.

A teaching ethos that respects the student, provides scaffolded-learning opportunities, and aspires to best practice both from the perspective of the teacher and on the part of the student’s performance is required. This ethos should not be idealistic or disproportionate to the student’s requirements. Effective language teaching is teaching that meets the outcomes that have been identified for the individual, level or course. Effective learning is learning that is aligned to clearly articulated, measurable outcomes. To blur the distinction between need and method or outcome and practice is to introduce the severest form of language learning blockage. In other words, if functional receptive competence is the desired outcome, theoretical, literary and communicative mastery – especially if flamboyantly pursued – constitutes a teacher-induced block. Similarly, endless drills and parrot-like recitations will not suffice if communicative competence and reasonable, general linguistic proficiency are required.

To conclude, then, matching teaching and purpose are likely to overcome most of the blocks that have been so extensively theorized and debated. While this implies due cognizance of the factors that may prevent language learning it emphasizes praxis over theory. In my view, good language learners, like good teachers, are made, not born.

Sources

Asher, James J., Ramiro, Garcia. 1969. ‘The Optimal Age to Learn a Foreign Language,’ The Modern Language Journal, 53.5. May: 334-351.

Harmer, Jeremy. 2006. The Practice of English Language Teaching. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.

Harmer, Jeremy. 2007. How to teach English. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.

Krashen, S. 1982. Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Permagon.

Lenneburg, Eric. 1967. Biological Foundations of Language. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

MacIntyre, P.D., Clément, R., Dörnyei, Z., and Noels, K.A. 1998. Conceptualizing Willingness to communicate in an L2: A Situational Model of L2 Confidence and Affiliation,’ The Modern Language Journal 82.4: 545-562.

Tucker, Richard G. 1976. ‘Affective, Cognitive and Social Factors in Second Language Acquisition,’ Canadian Modern Language Review 32.3. February: 214-226.

Widdowson, H.G. 1998. ‘Context, Community and Authentic Language,’ TESOL Quarterly 32.4. Winter: 705-716.