3

LANGUAGE ACQUISITION AND

LANGUAGE LEARNING
An overview

‘But I don’t want to go among mad people,’ Alice remarked.

‘Oh, you can’t help that,’ said the Cat: ‘we’re all mad here. I’m mad.You’re
mad.’
‘How do you know I’m mad?’ said Alice.
‘You must be,’ said the Cat, ‘or you wouldn’t have come here.’
Lewis Caroll, Alice in Wonderland (1865)

No, no! The adventures first, explanations take such a dreadful time.
Lewis Caroll, Alice in Wonderland (1865)

In Chapter 1, we approached the study of language through the interdisciplinary

lens of linguistics, culture, representation and literacy studies. Chapter 2 adopted a
sociopolitical approach to situate the teaching and learning of English in India. In
this chapter, we will look at select educational theories on the acquisition and learn-
ing of languages in general and English in particular.
Are learning and acquisition processes the same? What implications do lan-
guage learning theories on this subject have for language education? Through these
questions, we will consider the evolution in the understanding and applications of
language learning. The chapter will then consider the importance of language in
shaping and being shaped by world views and discuss what mastery over a language
entails. The chapter will also emphasise the connection between language and cul-
ture and the need to constantly examine and revise one’s ideas about competencies
in language learning and acquisition.
60 Language acquisition and language learning

Objectives
Through this chapter, the reader will be able to

• distinguish between acquisition and learning,

• identify different theories on language acquisition and learning,
• explore facets of the theories in relation to the Indian context and
• become familiar with the sociocultural-political-economic considerations of
adapting theories into practice in a multilingual context.

The discussions are organised along the following topics:

• The difference between language acquisition and language learning

• The evolution of thought on how language learning occurs
• The debate between whether language shapes thought or thought shapes
language
• The differences between language in informal interactions and language in
academia
• The importance of culture and intercultural tolerance in learning a language
• The principles of Universal Design for Learning (UDL)
• The teacher as a lifelong learner

Why English?
Despite the presence of a mere 378 million native speakers across the world,
English remains a global language. Simons and Fennings point out in Ethnologue
that Mandarin alone, of the various Chinese dialects, has 909 million native speak-
ers. The various Chinese dialects have a consolidated 1,299 million native speakers.
Spanish has 442 million native speakers. Unlike Spanish and the Chinese dialects,
however, English has emerged as the people’s tongue due to its worldwide spread so
that the non-native speakers of English outnumber native speakers, accounting for
most of the one-billion-plus users of the language. English is spoken in at least 118
countries, as opposed to the various Chinese dialects or Spanish that are spoken in
38 and 31 countries, respectively. This suggests then that there are more second-
language learners of English in the world, which must be taken into account in the
education systems.
David Crystal states, in The Guardian (2004), that India has more speakers of
English than any other country in the world. Similarly, a study conducted by Ravinder
Gargesh in 2003–04, of 108 under- and postgraduate courses across 727 universities
of India, highlighted the prevalence of English as the medium of instruction and
examination in higher education. English was the lingua franca in almost 80% of the
 Language acquisition and language learning 61

courses. While this survey is dated and limited to HEIs, the increasing spread of
English as a subject and the medium of instruction in central and state government
schools as a matter of policy, at times, and the driver of parents’ choice of schools for
their wards indicates its looming presence and impact in the Indian education sys-
tem. Using English as the medium of instruction can, however, pose learning chal-
lenges for students and learners for whom English is not present in their immediate
environment. The NEP 2020 engages with this anticipated deficit in learning and
advocates for more bilingual and regional language curricula in higher education
institutions. Despite these policies and measures, English remains a language of aspi-
ration and calls for interventions in the education system to focus on the nuances
of language and learning.

What is language?
It is appropriate to start the reflection on language and learning with the ques-
tion: what comprises a language? We have already discussed this in some detail
in Chapter 1. The following figure outlines the major structures that constitute a
language (Figure 3.1).

FIGURE 3.1 Major structures of language.

Source: Adapted by Ramesh Prakash Khade from Thomas, J. J., & Cook, K. A. (Eds.). (2005)
Illuminating the path: The research and development agenda for visual analytics. National
Visualization and Analytics Center.
https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Major_levels_of_linguistic_structure.svg.
62 Language acquisition and language learning

A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF TERMS

Phonology: the study of how speech sounds pattern and how they are organ-
ised (i.e. the sound system) – e.g. art, *rta (where ‘*’ = ungrammatical).

Can you think of a word in English that has ‘r’, ‘t’ and ‘a’ in that precise order?
The answer is ‘no’ and hence the word is ungrammatical.

Morphology: the study of word formation – e.g. un-happy-ness.

Syntax: the study of sentence structure – e.g. She hit the man with a hammer.

Semantics: the study of meaning in language – e.g. The cat killed the rat = The
rat was killed by the cat.

Pragmatics: the study of how meaning in language depends on context – e.g.

Yeah, right! (sarcastically stated, hence it means the opposite).

If these are the components of a language, how does one understand the rules
and apply them to receive and produce language meaningfully? How are the compo-
nents related to each other? Is it natural for all humans to acquire and use language, or
is it something that we learn to do, such as being socialised into cultural practices like
wearing clothes? These are some questions we will discuss in the following sections.

Language learning versus language acquisition

Is it possible to understand and use language to communicate without formal train-
ing? The answer is yes.This process is known as acquiring a language, and it is distinct
from language learning. Let us, at this point, consider some fundamental questions
pertaining to language and the choice to learn specific languages (Table 3.1).

TABLE 3.1 Difference between language acquisition and language learning

Language acquisition Language learning

• The purpose is communication. • It is initially not driven by a
• It is a subconscious process. communicative purpose.
• The learner is unaware of grammatical • It is a result of direct instruction in the
rules. rules of language.
• It works with a feel for what is and what • It is not an age-appropriate activity for
is not correct. very young learners.
• It needs a source of natural • Students have conscious knowledge of
communication. the new language and can talk about
• The emphasis is on the content of the that knowledge.
communication and not on the form. • It is instruction based: (Ref:
(Ref: Chomsky, etc.). behaviourism, etc.).
 Language acquisition and language learning 63

• Is language a mere system to communicate ideas, or is it a tool to transmit

culture?
• Is there a difference between home language/s and second language/s?
• Who makes decisions about the choice and variety of language to be taught in
formal contexts?
• Does learning in one’s home language aid subject mastery and cognitive devel-
opment? Does learning in a second language do the reverse?

The table indicates the difference between learning and acquisition. If one has
sufficient input/exposure to a language, one can acquire the rudiments of any lan-
guage to be able to communicate effectively without necessarily being aware of the
formal features that constitute that language. It is a subconscious process that intuits
the grammatical structures in use without knowing the grammatical rules.
Do we then need formal learning that follows rigid, rule-based structures when
acquisition requires language input as a core element for learners to use the lan-
guage? The answer depends on our approach to language + acquisition. Is language
a construct that needs to be taught? Is language innate to humans? Or does the view
lie somewhere in between these two positions?
The nature versus nurture debate on language is an old one. Philosophers like
Plato (428–347 BC) and Descartes (17th century) opined that knowledge is innate
and a child can master a language by the age of ten.The other point of view considers
humans to be born with a blank slate (tabula rasa) and suggests that learning occurs
through one’s senses. Aristotle (384–322 BC), Avicenna (11th century), Locke (17th
century), Rousseau (18th century) and Freud (20th century) are some proponents
of this second theory.
It is through the premise of this debate that we will approach some influential
theorists of language learning.While we will consider a few selected theories in this
chapter, the references at the end of the chapter can be used for further exploration
in the domain.

Nature or nurture
B. F. Skinner (1904–1990), a pioneer of behaviourism, extended this principle in
his book Verbal Behaviour (1957) to his understanding of language development in
humans. Skinner believed that children learn as they do through operant condition-
ing, wherein they associate a positive reinforcement with an action or, in the case
of language, an utterance. Unlike respondent or reflexive involuntary behaviour,
operant behaviours are controlled by consequences and are conscious responses to
stimuli. Operant conditioning is an inductive reasoning process that involves the
four stages of motivating operations (you need to desire the response, and situations can
make the response more or less desirable), discriminative stimuli (the presence of this
indicates whether the rewarding response will occur), responses (the utterance should
reliably lead to the response) and reinforcing stimuli. For Skinner, in the context of
children, this is further broken down into imitation of others, with their utterances
64 Language acquisition and language learning

being prompted, modelled and shaped through innumerable language instances.

This explains the acquisition of the home language that almost all children seem to
acquire effortlessly and why children in a stimulus-free environment seem unable
to learn language.

Motivating Operations: Think about the first words a child learns to speak. Do
these words, acquired and produced by the child, have anything to do with
the child’s motivation to get what she or he wants?
Discriminative Stimuli: To whom does the child speak? Strangers?
Caretakers? Parents? Why?
Responses: Does the child develop his or her pronunciation of words he or
she is unable to make others understand? Do children with a lisp exaggerate
their lisp if rewarded and strategise to hide their lisp if punished or not
rewarded?
Reinforcing Stimuli: How much does ‘motherese’ (imitating child talk) influ-
ence the child’s development of language?

Think of old sayings in your culture, such as everyday examples or connections to

traditions, regarding a child’s acquisition of language and the beliefs surrounding
delays in some children’s oral communication. Examine if the beliefs and practices
in your culture correlate with Skinner’s behaviourist principles of language
learning.

Reflect on the following statements. Identify the corresponding stage/s, if

applicable.

• Allow the child to cry a bit for his or her milk.

• Hold the bottle and ask the child if he or she wants milk.
• When the child asks for a biki, give the child a biscuit, even a tiny piece.
• Let the child cry and look to the caretaker (nanny, crèche minder, teacher,
etc.) to provide his or her needs.
• Let the child ask to go to the bathroom. Do not always pre-empt it. But let
the child know that wetting is a bad habit.
• Praise the child for wanting to go to the bathroom, even if it is a false alarm.
• Do not speak for the child.
• Do not reward the child till the child says ‘please’.
• Rephrase the child’s demand with the right pronunciation when giving the
item.

What is not clear is whether caretakers do provide reinforcing stimuli and feed-
back to children and shape children’s responses. While children cannot imitate
all language possibilities with their infinite permutations and combinations, they,
 Language acquisition and language learning 65

nevertheless, seem to understand them. Further, children are able to discern the
right structures of language despite being exposed, at times, to erroneous language
productions by adults. Another point of contention to Skinner’s postulates was that
there are certain irregularities in language use that are not discernible on the surface
(for instance, irony), and this requires a more nuanced understanding of language
acquisition than the ‘simple’ theory posited by Skinner. These arguments form the
core of Noam Chomsky’s (now famous) article, “A Review of Skinner’s Verbal
Behavior” (1959). In this article, Chomsky argues that humans were born with an
innate capacity to learn languages. This ‘Black Box’ or a ‘LAD’ contains a ‘Universal
Grammar’ that houses the various categories of language, such as noun, verb, adjec-
tive and so on. The child maps the home language vocabulary to the categories
and is instinctively able to use the language in the right combination meaningfully.
Chomsky contends that this combinatorial nature of language requires a level of
cognitive development, which is acquired sequentially as the child grows up.

LET US TRY AN EXERCISE TO SEE THIS IN EFFECT

A language puzzle: It is impossible to fully grasp the flexibility of language,

but here is another hint from linguist Steven Pinker. In his book Words and
Rules: The Ingredients of Language (1999), Pinker poses a thought game to
illustrate the incomprehensible scope of language.
Imagine a language consisting of only determiners (four in number: ‘a/an,
one, any, the’) plus 10,000 nouns and 4,000 verbs. Let us also assume that
with these relatively few words you can only create sentences of the following
type: ‘determiner + noun + verb + determiner + noun’ (DNVDN).
Here is an example of this kind of sentence: ‘The book is a novel’.

• A girl is walking a dog.

• The postman delivered these letters.
• The father is a pilot.
• An apple spoils the milkshake.
• The boy reads the book.

Now flip the DNVDN:

• The book reads the boy.

• The postman spoils the milkshake.
• An apple is a pilot.

No real language is so limited in vocabulary and structure. Yet with these

words and this structure you could theoretically make 6.4 trillion sentences. At
five seconds each, it would take you one million years to say them all.
66 Language acquisition and language learning

Such a simple language structure as DNVDN can have enough uses to take
up many lifetimes. But here is the interesting part: there is no limit to the num-
ber of structures we can create with language. We can make any sentence
longer, more complex or differently nuanced. This is also what distinguishes
humans from other species. Humans alone can use a limited number of struc-
tures to make an infinite combination of sounds and concepts.
Note: Steven Pinker largely agrees with Chomsky’s proposition of Universal
Grammar or the ‘language faculty’ but also believes, unlike Chomsky, that the
evolutionary theory can explain the language instinct in humans.

Though the Chomskyan approach (1965) was accepted, there are researchers and
linguists who have increasingly been challenging the notion of Universal Grammar.
Daniel Everett, for instance, identifies the Amazonian language Pirahã as being lim-
ited to the ‘immediacy of experience’ (2005) and reflective of their cultural values.
Similarly, tribes around the world have been noted to use language differently. Some,
like the Pirahã and the Munduruku, are anumeric, with no numbers in their lan-
guage. These instances seem to indicate that there are different kinds of languages
in the world, and children exposed to two or more varieties of language understand
the right structures for each language based on the input they receive.

TYPES OF LANGUAGES FROM AROUND THE WORLD

Isolating languages (a.k.a. analytic) → ones that use invariable words but
have strict rules of word order to keep the grammatical meanings of things clear.
Included are Chinese, Indonesian, Pidgins and Creoles.
English is inflexional (see below) but has been moving towards being
isolating.
Isolating languages are easy for adults to learn but not as easy for children.

Agglutinating languages (a.k.a. synthetic) → ones that add very regular

prefixes and suffixes to main words in order to express nuances.
Included are Finnish, Turkish, Japanese, Tamil, etc.
These languages are very explicit and logical, and they are easy for children
to learn.

Inflexional languages (a.k.a. fusional) → languages that use prefixes and

suffixes but also vary words to express nuances of meaning.
Included are Indo-European and Afro-Asiatic languages.
Declensions – variations on nouns (e.g. man, men, man’s, men’s).
 Language acquisition and language learning 67

Conjugations – variations on verbs (e.g. sing, sang, sung).

Inflexional languages can be difficult to learn because they usually involve
many irregularities.

Amalgamating languages (a.k.a. polysynthetic) → a much smaller group

of languages that tend towards complex words that carry a sentence-worth of
information.
Included are Basque, many Amerindian languages and Klingon.
These languages are usually very difficult to learn unless you are brought up
with them. The Basques joke that they are immune to the Devil because he
couldn’t learn their language!

Similarly, there is a difference in the sentence structures in these languages,

further challenging the notion of a Universal Grammar. Given next is an outline
of the different word orders in languages around the world that we know of up
until now.

Language: Word order (01)

SOV (subject-object-verb) is preferred by the greatest number of languages.
For example, Indo-European languages of India, such as Hindi and Bengali,
the Dravidian languages of southern India, Armenian, Hungarian, Turkish and
its relatives, Korean, Japanese, Burmese, Basque and most Australian aboriginal
languages.
Almost all SOV languages use postpositions (‘therein lies a tale’), with a
notable exception in Farsi (Persian).
Most have the adjective preceding the noun (red shirt). Exceptions include
Burmese, Basque and the Australian aboriginal languages, which have the
adjective follow the noun.

Language: Word order (02)

SVO is the second-largest group but has the largest number of speakers.
They are split between languages that use prepositions (‘I go to school’)
and ones that use postpositions (‘therein lies a tale’). Among the prepositional
languages are the Romance languages, Albanian, Greek; the Bantu languages;
languages of South-East Asia, including Khmer, Vietnamese, Thai and Malay;
and the Germanic languages.
Most of these have the adjective following the noun (‘un enfant terrible’),
except for the Germanic languages, which put the adjective before the noun
(‘ein schreckliches kind’).
68 Language acquisition and language learning

The second group uses postpositions. These include Chinese, Finnish and
Estonian; non-Bantu languages of Africa, such as Mandingo; and the South
American Indian language, Guarani. The first three use adjectives before the
noun, while the others use adjectives after the noun. Some linguists believe
that Chinese is moving towards an SOV language structure.

Language: Word order (03)

The third kind of word order is found in the VSO (verb-subject-object) lan-
guages. In Irish, they say Cheannaich mi blobhsa – ‘Bought I blouse’ – as
opposed ‘I bought a blouse’. These always use prepositions. Although a rela-
tively small group, it includes most Semitic languages, including Arabic and
Hebrew; Celtic languages, such as Gaelic and Welsh; the Polynesian languages;
and a number of American Indian languages, such as Kwakiutl (British
Columbia) and Nahuatl (Aztec). Most have the adjective after the noun.
Kwakiutl and Nahuatl have the adjective before the noun.

Language: Word order (04)

Few languages put the subject after the object. Several north-west US and
Canadian Indian languages use VOS, including Coeur d’Alene, Siuslaw and
Coos. While the first uses prepositions and adjectives after the noun, the others
use postpositions and adjectives before the noun!

Language: Word order (05)

There are also languages that use more than one of the standard systems.
Notable among these is Tagalog and English. Strongly inflexional languages,
such as Russian and Latin, often permit varied word order as well.

Can you give examples of different word orders that English allows?
(Hint: Look at the varieties of World Englishes.)

The differences in the sentence structures of languages further challenge the

notion of a single Universal Grammar. For instance, as native speakers of Indian lan-
guages, such as Hindi, we understand the SOV (subject-object-verb) order that leads
to sentences such as ‘hum seb khaate hain (we apple eat)’ that is used by a majority
of the world’s languages. The SVO order of English and other languages produces
sentences such as ‘We eat an apple’. This second group has the greatest number of
speakers in the world. A bilingual child switches between these word orders and
seems to understand the differences between the grammars, leading some linguists
to question if a Black Box can explain the language acquisition process and whether
the process is guided equally by the input provided in one’s learning environment.
 Language acquisition and language learning 69

We can see now why this debate of nature (innate language acquisition) versus
nurture (language learnt through an enabling environment) is so fundamental to the
idea of language learning and acquisition.This debate is, in fact, ‘considered by some
linguists to be one of the most important in the social sciences, with implications for
evolutionary theory, neuroscience, and “human nature” itself ’ (McWhorter, 2016).

The stages of language learning

Let us now move to Piaget (1951) who furthered the cause of associating cognitive
development with language learning. Piaget charted a series of language acquisition
stages linked to the sensory-motor development in a child. Several other theorists
proffer similar arguments, albeit along a different developmental timeline. We will
explore some of their ideas in this section.
Jean Piaget posited that learning occurs as a result of the child’s direct interaction
with his or her environment.The concept of active learning emerges from this kind
of thinking. Piaget believed that the mental development in children leads to the
creation of schemas within which language structures are housed. He envisioned
language acquisition as a process of assimilation (adapting one’s environment to fit
one’s existing schema) and accommodation (adapting one’s schema to fit the envi-
ronment) and believed that children below the age of seven have a limited ability
to think and reason.
Lev Vygotsky (1978) threw light on how social interactions play an important
role in the zone of proximal development (ZPD), whereby children are enabled to
move from their current level of learning to the potential they are capable of. This
forms the foundation of the sociocultural approach to language learning and acqui-
sition.Vygotsky opined that there were no particular stages of development and that
it was through language that thought was largely shaped. Language was acquired
not as a result of cognitive development but from social interactions with adults and
peers who knew the language. Unlike Piaget, who focussed on language as a tool
for labelling experience and linked it to a gradual process of cognitive constructiv-
ism, Vygotsky emphasised culture as a tool for language learning and valued this
approach to language learning in education (Figure 3.2).
Jerome Bruner (1983) built on Vygotsky’s argument and focussed on the process
of language learning in adults. He emphasised the importance of scaffolding in
learning in enabling a child’s acquisition of language and reasoning. Through his
work on the cognitive development of children, Bruner proposed three modes of
representation in which information or knowledge are encoded in one’s memory:

• Enactive representation (these are action-based, used to understand tool use,

etc.; 0–1 years)
• Iconic representation (these are image-based, used to understand the world
through our senses; 1–6 years)
• Symbolic representation (these are language-based, used to understand con-
cepts; 7 years onwards)
70 Language acquisition and language learning

FIGURE 3.2 A representation of Vygotsky’s ZPD.

Source: Adapted by Ramesh Prakash Khade from https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/
File:Zone_of_proximal_development.svg#mw-jump-to-license.

The third mode of representation is, for Bruner, the most significant since it allows
one to deal with the abstract and transcend the immediacy of sensory experiences. For
Bruner, meaning-making is at the heart of all human endeavour. Further, he posits that
children’s ability to make sense of their world is ‘not simply a mental achievement, but
an achievement of social practice that lends stability to the child’s social life’ (p. 68).

Recall Susanne Langer’s concept of representational and discursive symbolisa-

tion as features of human language. Do you see points of convergence
between Bruner’s and Langer’s ideas about language, symbol and
representation?

David Crystal (1987) extends this idea of a stage-wise language acquisition pro-
cess, adding that these stages are not clearly defined and often flow into each other.

• Stage 1: Children use language to either get something, attract attention or

draw attention to something.They have a limited vocabulary, are limited largely
to two-word phrases and use rising intonation to pose questions.
• Stage 2: They ask questions, mainly ‘where’s’ and ‘what’s’, and try to classify
objects into simple binary categories.
• Stage 3: Children ask more and different kinds of questions. They also have an
expanded sentence structure, although they make mistakes.These are occasions
of self-correction and are often evident in their language use.
• Stage 4: Children use complex sentences more easily and more often. They are
focussed on explanations and reasons and not just the what, where, when, who
aspects of information. More questions about the why’s and how’s flood their
 Language acquisition and language learning 71

conversations.They also communicate a range of demands and seek permission

instead of merely expressing a desire.
• Stage 5: Children are able to use language for all its functions – giving infor-
mation, seeking information, answering questions, requesting, comparing, per-
suading, evaluating, suggesting and so forth.

Crystal, like Chomsky, believes that language acquisition is a process of trial and
error that is focussed on meaning-making.
Similarly, Jean Aitchison, in The Language Web (1996), expands on her earlier
work in 1987 on the three stages of ‘a biologically organized schedule’ for language
development in a child. She identifies three simple, fluid stages:

• Labelling: linking sound to concept with explicit references in the real world.
• Packaging: understanding the range of words – for instance, intonation.
• Network building: recognising the connections between words, such as syn-
onyms, antonyms and metonyms.

Aitchison, interestingly, believes that language development occurs as a result of

a combination of innate abilities and an interaction with the environment. She
acknowledges the role of the imitation of language input in language development
in children.

Can you identify examples of language acquisition for each stage as laid out by
the theorists? How do they relate to each other?

Piaget Vygotsky Bruner Crystal Aitchinson

Who among the theorists discussed so far in this chapter will agree with the
statements given below?

• Language is innate to humans.

• We are born with a tabula rasa (blank slate) and learn everything in this
world.
• One needs to reach a particular stage of cognitive development to acquire
a corresponding level of language use.
• Language learning can precede the corresponding cognitive
development.
• The social environment is most necessary for language learning.
• Imitation is a necessary process to learn a language.
72 Language acquisition and language learning

Linguistic determinism or linguistic relativity

So far, we considered debates on how language is acquired. We will now consider
whether the acquisition of language leads to the shaping of our world view or the
converse occurs, with world views shaping language acquisition.
Language, we have seen, is viewed ‘primarily as a system of phonetic symbols’ to
express ‘thoughts and feelings’ and is ‘heuristic’, enabling one to discover knowledge
by oneself. Edward Sapir (1929) posited that language can substitute experience.

The following website provides an overview of the ideas proposed by Edward

Sapir: https://youtu.be/N-mot0obI2c

His student, Benjamin Lee Whorf, was responsible for constructing the theory of
linguistic relativity that examines the extent to which one’s language shapes one’s
world view. The strong version of linguistic relativity, which has been contested as a
construct by Sapir and Whorf, implies that thought is not possible without language
and language shapes one’s understanding of the world. The more widely accepted
weak hypothesis purports that language influences one’s perception of the world.
Watch this video for an overview of the theory of linguistic relativity: https://
youtu.be/sGUok7jBrcA

Case study 1
There are many parts in India, such as Himachal Pradesh, the interiors of Rajasthan,
etc., where buses do not operate. Instead, people travel in mini-vans and trucks.
Since there are no buses and, therefore, no tickets to be sold, the bus conductor is
an unknown figure to residents of these regions. Would a student from these
regions who reads the word conductor for the first time be able to grasp the con-
cept? How should this student be taught about bus conductors? Would there be a
change in world view for the student through exposure to the word ‘conductor’?

Case study 2
In India, a popular way of introducing relatives involves the use of phrases such
as ‘my own sister’, ‘blood brother’, ‘Savi Aunty’, ‘Rahim Chacha’, ‘my cousin
from my mother’s side’, ‘Francis Anna’, ‘Neelam Didi’ and so on. This is unlike
native English speakers who would refer to their relatives as ‘Aunt Fanny’ or
‘my cousin Rita’. Terms like ‘aunty’ are also used to indicate blood relatives
when used by native speakers, while many Indians use the term as a generic
one to indicate an older woman among their acquaintances. How do these
nuances of use of language reflect, inform and/or condition our world views?

Let’s reflect: Does language shape reality or our perceptions of it? Can we,
through our thoughts, influence language? Give examples to justify your response.
 Language acquisition and language learning 73

The input hypothesis

Irrespective of one’s position on the debates on language development, input is a
necessary aspect of language learning. Stephen Krashen’s monitor model, or the
input hypothesis, first published in 1977, comprises five interlinked hypotheses that
have had a significant influence on theories of language acquisition.

• The input hypothesis: Learners need input to be one level above their current
one (i+1) for language learning to occur.
• The acquisition-learning hypothesis: Learning is a conscious process that
does not necessarily translate into fluent and appropriate language use. This
is dependent on the more subconscious acquisition process of language
development.
• The monitor hypothesis: Learning can enable the correction of mistakes made
in language output but does not result in spontaneous language use.
• The natural order hypothesis: The innate language learning order influences
language acquisition, irrespective of the order in which language learning is
organised.
• The affective filter hypothesis: Emotions affect learning a language. Negative
emotions impede language development.

Krashen later introduced a sixth reading hypothesis in which he argued that the
more one is exposed to language through a variety of reading materials, particu-
larly literary works, the more one gains proficiency. He builds on this argument,
establishing through quantitative studies that learners who voluntarily chose from a
curated list of texts to read in a reading programme displayed better language learn-
ing competences in terms of vocabulary enrichment and comprehension abilities.
By this hypothesis, content is important.

Competence and performance

As we reflect on various language learning theories and ways in which one can
learn languages, we must also consider if it is enough to learn the linguistic struc-
tures of a language in order to acquire it. Is it enough to know words and grammar
to communicate? Dell Hymes, in 1966, identified ‘communicative competence’ as
the functional knowledge that governs language use.

A normal child acquires knowledge of sentences not only as grammatical,

but also as appropriate. He or she acquires competence as to when to speak,
when not, and as to what to talk about with whom, when, where, in what
manner. In short, a child becomes able to accomplish a repertoire of speech
acts, to take part in speech events, and to evaluate their accomplishment by
others.
Dell Hymes (1972, p. 277)
74 Language acquisition and language learning

Communicative competence consists of four competencies

• Linguistic competence – that is, knowledge of language structures, of syntax

and of semantics in order to use the language.
• Sociocultural competence – that is, the knowledge of sociocultural rules that
enable one to use language to communicate appropriately in accordance with
the context.
• Discourse competence – that is, the knowledge of the mediums one would
use to communicate.This includes producing written texts or knowing how to
listen to a lecture versus a fictional narrative and so on.
• Strategic competence – that is, knowing how to repair any communication
breakdown possibilities to ensure effective communication. For instance,
mouthing words, enacting or writing to communicate the same message when
there is noise in the environment.

The role of medium of instruction and examination

Cummins, in his studies in 1980, underlined the lack of awareness among educators
and policymakers about the difference between BICS and CALP and the impact of
this lack of awareness on teaching and assessing language learning in formal con-
texts. He points to the need for support systems to enable second-language learners
to understand instruction and to continue to improve their language skills (2017,
p. 73). However, despite the wide acceptance of Cummins’s arguments, there is still
a dearth of systematic intervention in education systems in these areas.

1. Identify some distinctive features of language/s that children speak in the

playground or in social interactions, and in the language used in the classroom.

Features Classroom Playground (informal Playground (informal

(textbook) communication) communication)
language language 1 language 2
Vocabulary – informality (use
of slang)
Syntax (use of complete
sentences)
Connect to home/state culture
Add rows for each new point

2. Which sections of the NEP 2020 support or argue against Cummins’s point of
view?
3. Where does the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organisation (UNESCO) viewpoint on language teaching in school educa-
tion stand in relation to Cummins’s argument?
 Language acquisition and language learning 75

In India, proficiency in English often does not extend to BICS because Indian
students have few opportunities to practice their interpersonal skills in English, rely-
ing often on their home or state language. Aspiring Minds’ National Employability
Report – Engineers 2019 reported, for instance, that ‘most engineers (76.78%) do not
exhibit the required competence in English communication’ (p. 19). This can exac-
erbate the students’ difficulty with the academic register required of them in higher
education, leading to possible hesitation on their part in sharing their thoughts in
spoken/written forms in larger academic circles. One consequence of the lack of
BICS proficiency affecting CALP is a marginalisation and construction of hier-
archies within educational spaces that eschews inclusivity in learning and creates
inequity.
BICS and CALP are different registers. While BICS can be acquired quickly
in a couple of years through sustained exposure, CALP remains a lifelong learning
process. Different kinds of texts are constructed differently and will, therefore, require
different strategies for meaning-making. Magazine articles and academic journals,
for instance, require different reading strategies because they are different genres
of writing. Writing processes, further, are more advanced in CALP than in BICS.
Our education systems, language classrooms, mediums of instruction, language
pedagogies and examinations need to factor these differences and adapt to suit the
requirements of students studying in Indian vernaculars. In this context, Pauline
Gibbons (1991) spotlights the difference between BICS or ‘playground language’
and CALP or ‘classroom language’ as stark, leading to cognitive dissonance within
the classroom if the gap is not bridged consciously. How often, Gibbons asks, would
we encounter the following utterance on a playground:

If we increase the angle by 5 degrees, we could cut the circumference into equal parts.
Nor does [that language of the playground] normally require the language
associated with higher order thinking skills, such as hypothesizing, evaluating,
inferring, generalizing, predicting or classifying.
(p. 3)

As a result, students are often tasked with using a language focussing on func-
tions and structures that do not occur in their immediate environments like play-
grounds and homes. If strategies to enhance their proficiency in the use of CALP
are not consciously focussed on, their academic progress and upward mobility can
be hampered.
It must be noted that while BICS generally precedes CALP in language acquisi-
tion, Cummins argues that this need not be so. He gives an example of a scientist
who might be proficient in writing research papers in the second language but
may be unable to converse in social situations in the same language (2000, p. 5).
Cummins refers, also, to Corson’s analysis of the English language lexicon that iden-
tified the prevalence of Graeco-Latin words in children’s literature in English, argu-
ing that students must be exposed to written texts in order to acquire the academic
register. Cummins submits that ‘standardised tests and premature exit from bilingual
76 Language acquisition and language learning

programmes have contributed to the perpetuation of coercive power relations in

the educational system’ (Cummins, 2000, p. 15).
Cummins’s Common Underlying Proficiency (CUP) theory assumes that
students will be able to draw on their first language to be able to function at an
acceptable standard in the second language in both BICS and CALP. However, in
India, when the language that the students are exposed to in school is often not their
first language, this has repercussions equally for their language proficiency in the
state language (such as Hindi) and their aspirational language, English.The challenge
increases in the higher education system that, currently, is primarily in English.

Intercultural competence
In addition to the discourse differences between language structures in academic
and basic communication and the syntax of the home language/s and English, other
factors affect language learning. In the United States of America, a popular reference
for this is the World-Readiness Standards for Learning Languages (https://actfl.org).This
is a revised edition of the Standards for Foreign Language Learning: Preparing for the 21st
Century, published first in 1996. Adopted nationally, the World-Readiness Standards
identified 5Cs (communication, cultures, connections, comparison, communities)
as goals in learning languages, even as it highlights how language learning involves
11 standards in language proficiency. In this framework, culture is accorded sub-
stantial significance as learners make connections while learning another language.
This can become a perspective-building exercise that can expand one’s community.
The more popular Common European Framework of References for Languages:
Learning, Teaching, Assessment (CEFR) that is widely adopted and adapted across
the world and includes sign languages, refers to cultural knowledge as a compe-
tence that influences appropriacy in language use (https://coe.int). By doing so,
it acknowledges the pluriculturalism and plurilingualism of sociocultural systems,
even as it emphasises creativity and problem solving in language learning. Revised
periodically since 1975, the CEFR is referred to for standards across languages
to determine thresholds for, and describe competencies in, each level of language
learning from A1 to C2. It is evident that we need to account for not only the single
C in cognitive development but also many other cultural factors that can influence
language use and development in the language classroom. Culture includes belief
systems and the practices of a people that are evolving and overlap with other cul-
tures due to several reasons, such as interactions among the members of the group
or archetypal notions adopted by societies that have roots in a common ancestry.
Does intercultural competence aid language learning? Deardoff in Process Model
of Intercultural Competence (2006) asks university administrators and scholars of inter-
culturalism to identify necessary skills in the area. An overwhelming number of
respondents identified self-awareness and openness to new ideas to transform one’s
opinions and self as the strength of intercultural competence. Language learning,
especially in the second and foreign language space, requires an ability to extend
 Language acquisition and language learning 77

one’s imagination and accept ideas alien to one’s immediate contexts and beliefs.
The language learner continually constructs knowledge and is akin to a researcher
on a voyage, discovering new ideas and constructs. Michael Byram (2008) identifies
the language learner possessing ‘conscious awareness’ (p. 72) of his or herself as a cul-
tural being and constantly engaged in discovering, analysing and evaluating mean-
ingful information as an ‘intercultural mediator’ (p. 68). This information, Gómez
Rodríguez (2012) opines, is better found in authentic texts, such as literature, films,
documentaries and other media. Further, the teacher is no longer the gatekeeper of
knowledge, but a facilitator of the learner’s exploration.

Think of a story you read or a film you saw that fascinated you but that was
alien to your belief system and practices.

What aspects of language in that experience gained new meaning for you?
These could be words (newly acquired or acquiring new dimensions), lan-
guage structures, use of metaphors and so on.

Universal design principles for learning

It is evident that the debates on language learning and acquisition are unresolved
and the ideas posited by various scholars need to be consistently revisited, reex-
amined, reframed, revised and re-envisioned. We may, perhaps, never really have a
single answer to any of these debates; perhaps, we do not need a single answer. We
can find multiple pathways to enable language learning, irrespective of the theory
of language acquisition and learning that is predominant, especially in light of the
multiplicity and diversity inherent in learner profiles and contexts within an English
language classroom in India. The flexibility inherent in this approach can enable an
inclusive language classroom.
Let us reflect on some of the foundational features of learning as proposed in the
UDL that adopts a variety of ways in which language learning could be facilitated
for greater inclusivity. There are three principles that UDL espouses. These are as
follows:

• Representation of learning content in multimodal ways to appeal to all ­learners

– for instance, informed and balanced use of text, images and audio.
• Opportunities to express learning in multitudinous ways to enable learners to
exhibit their competency – for instance, allowing students to write, speak or
draw when testing their learning.
• Enabling engagement in learning by understanding student interests and using
this understanding to motivate students to learn – for instance, using games,
music or popular songs to teach language.
78 Language acquisition and language learning

Brij Kothari is credited with same language subtitling (SLS) to encourage mass
functional literacy in India. Begun as an experiment in 1996 on all major TV
channels, SLS became a national policy in 2019. SLS requires subtitles or cap-
tions to be written in the same language as the one spoken on screen. This
enables learners to pick up the language and subconsciously make connec-
tions between the script and the phonetics of that language. Kothari subse-
quently founded PlanetRead, a not-for-profit organisation, to research,
promote and further innovate on his concept of SLS.

Analyse if and how SLS adheres to principles of UDL and intercultural compe-
tence. Give reasons and suitable examples to justify your response.

TPD for language acquisition and language learning

The world of teachers has become more complex as increasing economic oppor-
tunities across states and around the globe have led to more transnational and trans-
state migrants traversing the country. Different cultures prioritise different learning
styles, attitudes and interests. The need to adapt to the changing dynamics of policy
decisions that support specific views on what constitutes language acquisition and
learning presents challenges for teachers. There has also been a shift in education to
aspects that transcend the language structures of semantics (vocabulary and meaning)
and syntax (grammar) and move into pragmatics (language in use within contexts).
The teacher needs to adapt to learning outcomes that value appropriacy and
fluency over accuracy and the effectiveness of communication over error-free com-
munication. Creating a safe environment for learning from errors, enabling con-
structivist learning opportunities and motivating learners to discover, explore and
interact with learning materials in multiple ways to make meaning from them are
some of the many responsibilities that the language teacher shoulders today.To cope
with this, the teacher as a practitioner has to be a researcher, a problem solver, an
innovator, a collaborator and a communicator. Being conversant with current devel-
opments in language education in pedagogy, content and use of technology requires
the teacher to be a lifelong learner. The paradigm of ‘learning to teach’ seems to
have shifted in favour of ‘teaching to learn’.

IN SUMMARY
In this chapter we looked at the following:

• The difference between language acquisition (a subconscious process

based on inputs) and language learning (a conscious exercise with reflec-
tions on structure of language and so on)
 Language acquisition and language learning 79

• The evolution of thought in how language learning occurs from behaviour-

istic ideologies of learning language through reinforcement, to nativist
thoughts of innateness and stage-wise development linked to milestones in
mastering cognitive skills
• The argument between whether language shapes thought or thought
shapes language that the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis highlights with its strong
and weak versions
• The difference between the language of the classroom and the language of
the playground highlighted by Cummins in his distinction between BICS
and CALP
• The importance of culture and the need to have an open mind to learn a
language
• The principles of UDL for representation, expression and engagement
• The role of a teacher as a lifelong learner

Exercises
1. Present a comparison of the estimation of three prominent thinkers Piaget,
Bruner and Vygotsky with respect to children’s ages and their abilities in lan-
guage use.
2. Present a comparative analysis of an English language textbook with any other
language textbook of the same grade with respect to the exposure to opportu-
nities to develop intercultural competence. Explain your analysis with reference
to learning situations and the learners’ background.
3. Create two activities for any one lesson in an English language textbook of any
grade using UDL principles.

To access sample responses to these exercises, please visit Chapter 3 on TISSx

and attempt the ‘Submit and Compare’ activities.

References
ACTFL. (n.d.). ACTFL. Retrieved from https://www.actfl.org/resources/world-readiness-​
standards-learning-languages
Aggarwal,V., Nithyanand, S., & Sharma M. (2019). National Employability Report-Engineers
2019. Aspiring Minds. Retrieved from https://aspiringminds.com
Aitchison. (1996). The Language Web. Cambridge University Press.
Bruner, J., & Watson, R. (1983). Childs’'s Talk: Learning to Use Language. W.W. Norton &
Company.
Byram, M. (2008). From Foreign Language Education to Education for Intercultural Citizenship:
Essays and Reflections. Multilingual Matters.
80 Language acquisition and language learning

Chomsky, N., & Skinner, B. F. (1959).Verbal Behavior. Language 35(1): 26. doi:10.2307/411334
Council of Europe. (n.d.). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages:
Learning, teaching, assessment (CEFR). Retrieved from https://www.coe.int/en/web/
portfolio/the-common-european-framework-of-reference-for-languages-learning-
teaching-assessment-cefr-
Crystal, D. (1987). Child Language, Learning, and Linguistics: An Overview for the Teaching and
Therapeutic Professions. Arnold.
———. (2004). ‘Subcontinent Raises its Voice’. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.
theguardian.com/education/2004/nov/19/tefl.
Cummins, J. (1979). Cognitive/academic language proficiency, linguistic interdependence,
the optimum age question and some other matters. Working Papers on Bilingualism, No.
19, 121–129.
———. (2000). Putting Language Proficiency in its Place. English in Europe: The Acquisition
of a Third Language 19: 54.
———. (2017). BICS and CALP: Empirical and Theoretical Status of the Distinction.
Literacies and Language Education 59–71. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-02252-9_6
Deardorff, D. K. (2006). Identification and Assessment of Intercultural Competence as a
Student Outcome of Internationalization. Journal of Studies in International Education 10(3):
241–266. doi:10.1177/1028315306287002
Everett, D. L. (2019). How Language Began:The Story of Humanity’s Greatest Invention. Liveright
Publishing Corporation, a division of W.W. Norton & Company.
Everett, D. (2005). Cultural Constraints on Grammar and Cognition in Pirahã. Current
Anthropology 46(4): 621–646. doi:10.1086/431525
Gibbons, P. (2015). Scaffolding Language, Scaffolding Learning:Teaching English Language Learners
in the Mainstream Classroom. Heinemann.
Gómez Rodríguez, L. F. (2012). Intercultural Communicative Competence Through Reading
Authentic Literary Texts in an Advanced Colombian efl Classroom: A Constructivist
Perspective. Profile Journal 14(1): 49–66.
Hymes, D. (1972). On Communicative Competence. Sociolinguistics 269293, 269–293.
Krashen, S. D. (1999). The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. Laredo Publishing.
Kothari, B., Takeda, J., Joshi, A., & Pandey, A. (2002). Same Language Subtitling: A Butterfly
for Literacy?. International Journal of Lifelong Education 21(1): 55–66.
Languages of the World. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.ethnologue.com/
McWhorter, J. (2016, September 14). The bonfire of Noam Chomsky: Journalist
Tom Wolfe targets the acclaimed linguist. Retrieved from https://www.vox.com/
the-big-idea/2016/9/14/12910180/noam-chomsky-tom-wolfe-linguist
Pinker, S. (1999). Words and Rules:The Ingredients of Language. Phoenix.
Rose, D. H., & Meyer, A. (2006). A Practical|Reader in Universal Design for Learning. Harvard
Education Press.
Skinner, B. (1957). Verbal Behaviour. Appleton Century Crofts.
The Guardian. (2004, November 19). Subcontinent raises its voice. Retrieved from https://
www.theguardian.com/education/2004/nov/19/tefl
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society:The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Harvard
University Press.
Vygotskiĭ, L. S., Hanfmann, E., Vakar, G., & Kozulin, A. (2012). Thought and Language. MIT
Press.Walz, H. P. (n.d.). 6. Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis and Brain Activity. Universalism versus
Relativism in Language and Thought. doi:10.1515/9783110805826.109