J. Marvin Brown
(Originally written in July 1992,
revised 2001)
In 1984, the American University Alumni Language Center in
Bangkok started using a new version of the natural approach to teach the Thai
language.
In publications it has been referred to as ‘The Listening Approach’,
but in Thailand it was first called ‘The Natural Approach’.
In more recent years it’s become known as
‘Automatic Language Growth’ or ‘ALG’.
Like natural approaches elsewhere, it is based on the principle that
understanding real language use is the only thing that leads to natural
language acquisition.
But unlike the others, it claims that any attempt to
speak (or even think about language) before natural speaking comes by itself
will cause irreversible damage and impose a ceiling on the final results!
This article reports on the Automatic
Language Growth Program (ALG) over the first sixteen years of its development.
ONE -
THE CHILD’S SECRET
It is
common knowledge that when people move to a new country the children will end
up speaking the language natively and the adults won’t.
The widely accepted explanation is that
children have a special ‘gift’ that they lose as they grow up.
Even with the coming of the age of science
this ‘gift’ theory went unquestioned, and early linguists thought some special
remedy was needed.
They proposed that,
for adults, languages should be taught
and studied instead of picked up. And this idea slowly evolved into present day
language teaching.
But
are we any better off with present day language teaching?
Why, for example, do adults in Central Africa
clearly do better when they move to a new language community than our modern
students do?
Could it be that early
linguists (and all the rest of us) were mistaken?
Maybe adults can do what children do.
Maybe it’s just typical adult behavior (not
adult inadequacy) that interferes.
THE MISTAKE – Children can do something that adults cannot.
THE UNASKED
QUESTION – What would happen if an adult were
to just listen for a year without speaking?
OUR ANSWER
– Both adults and children can do it right, but only adults can do it wrong.
Imagine a 4 year-old child and an adult reacting to somebody
talking to them in a foreign language.
The child most often just listens, while
the adult usually tries talk back.
Now suppose that ‘not trying to speak’ was
the child’s secret. It could be.
After all, doesn’t it make sense that
listening to things that are always right would tend to build the language
right, while saying things that are always wrong would tend to build it
wrong?
It makes you wonder what would
happen if adults were to do the same thing children do, (that is, just listen
for a year or two without trying to say anything).
It would be worth finding out. But it seems that this experiment was never
tried. Not until recently, that is.
In 1984, the AUA language center in Bangkok started doing
precisely this in its Thai classes.
The
students just listened for as much as a year without speaking at all.
We found that adults get almost the same
results that children do.
If adults
understand natural talk, in real situations, without trying to say anything,
for a whole year, then fluent speaking with clear pronunciation will come by itself.
A lesser period of not speaking will produce
proportionately less-perfect results.
It
seems that the difference between adults and children is not that adults have
lost the ability to do it right, (that is, to pick up languages natively by
listening) but that children haven’t yet gained the ability to do it wrong
(that is, to spoil it all with contrived speaking).
We’re suggesting that it’s this contrived
speaking (consciously thinking up one’s sentences – whether it be with
translations, rules, substitutions, expansions, or any other kind of thinking,)
that damages adults, even when the sentences come out right).
We’re also suggesting that natural speaking
(speaking that comes by itself) won’t cause damage (not even when it’s wrong).
It seems that the harm doesn’t come from
being wrong but from thinking things up.
Now it
would appear that the brain is incapable of this kind of contriving before the
age of 10-12, so the children are automatically protected; whenever natural
sentences don’t ‘pop into their heads’ they have to keep quiet.
Of course children do come up with lots of
ill-formed sentences, but these sentences aren’t contrived; they pop out of
incompletely formed language.
But with adults, whenever a sentence fails to pop
they contrive one. You can spot this contriving from the typical hesitation
sounds (uh...er...mmm...) as they struggle.
These sounds suggest that they’re
building the language in the wrong place – the place that thinks.
This part of
the brain is the adults’ pride and joy, but it sure is an awkward place to put
a language.
Now the question is how can
we get the language into the right place?
And the ALG answer is to just stop ‘trying to think it in’ – to simply
switch channels from ‘try’ to ‘let’.
And
it seems that the ‘let’ channel is still alive and well in the adult
brain. Nothing has been lost.
What
we’re suggesting is this.
The reason
that children always end up as native speakers is because they learn to speak
by listening.
And the reason that adults
don’t is because they learn to speak by speaking.
But how can we explain this?
How can an accumulation of listening and
understanding alone lead to the ability to speak?
The answer was given by William Powers.
He said that when we try to make a given
sound, hum a given tune, or say a given word (as examples of a more general
theory), it’s the memory (or mental image) of the sound, tune, or word that
controls its production – not our muscles.
And the correctness of the product depends only on the correctness of
this image.
Powers called these images
‘reference signals’.
They are, in this
case, sound images that have been either stored or neurally computed.
So to speak a language perfectly, all we need
is a complete set of perfect reference signals.
And reference signals are acquired through perception – not
production.
In other words, we don’t
learn to speak by speaking; we learn to speak by listening (with
understanding).
There were two important
ideas that led to our understanding of the child’s secret.
(1) Stephen Krashen’s idea that language
acquisition comes from understanding rather than speaking, and (2) Powers’ idea
that speaking is controlled by mental images of sounds, words, sentences, etc.
– not by muscles.
But Krashen’s theory
wasn’t working nearly as well with adults as with children and the AUA
experience suggested the reason.
Adults
talk too much.
And while everything they
hear makes their reference signals better, everything they say makes them worse.
It was a losing battle – even with Krashen’s
suggested ‘silent period’ of 10 hours or more.
A third step was needed.
Students’ speaking had to be eliminated completely.
It’s the sounds in your head that form the sounds that come
from your mouth.
So it
looks like the child’s secret doesn’t consist of a young brain passing through
a magically receptive period at all.
The
formula seems to be this: ‘Listen’, ‘Don’t speak’, and ‘Be patient’. And now it appears that this is not only the
child’s secret. It’s everybody’s
secret.
And while children do it more
faithfully, adults can do it faster.
For
a ‘difficult’ language (like Thai for English speakers), it looks like adults
can usually move twice as fast as babies.
That is, they can become 2-year-olds in a year.
TWO -
HOW ALG WORKS
Most
language teachers throughout the world are constantly telling their students to
try to speak as much as they can, and to think carefully before they say
anything so they’ll get it right.
And
now I’m saying that this kind of speaking and thinking is the very thing that
keeps adults from learning languages well. But take careful note of the
following point.
And keep coming back to it every time you feel a strong
opposition to the ALG position.
As
opposite as our positions may seem, there is actually no disagreement.
We’re just doing different things.
With ALG we’re interested in natural language
acquisition, while most of the world is settling for an artificial use of
foreign languages by adults.
They’re
teaching their students to ‘contrive’ sentences.
We’re teaching ours to ‘improvise’ them.
And
surely there’s no argument as to which one is better It’s just that most of the
world believes that natural language acquisition is impossible for adults, or
at least that it would take too long to be practicable.
And the purpose of this
article is to show that it is both possible and practicable.
This
will become clearer in part Four.
But first we’d better try to make our
counter-intuitive position seem more intuitive, or we might not have any
readers left by part Four.
So we’ll offer a little common sense theory here to
show that we are simply following the natural working of the brain. Now we
don’t claim to have any privileged information about how the brain works, but
our experience may have given us some fresh kinds of guesses.
Having identified
them as guesses here, we won’t label them as such below.
This will make for
easier reading. But whenever the reader thinks it’s necessary, he should add
something like this to each sentence of part Two; ‘we think that...’ or ‘It
looks like...’.
Memories
are the brain’s natural way of recording things.
Vast scenarios can be recorded in an
instant and stored away for life.
We record so many memories every day that the
brain has to sort them out and systematize them for more efficient storage.
And
this is what natural knowledge is; systematized memories.
The word ‘dog’ for
example, (an example of knowledge, not a memory) has been abstracted from
thousands of memories of dogs (most of which have since been erased in order to
provide new space).
So
natural systematization of memories is one way to produce knowledge.
But there
is also another way.
It uses memory instead of memories.
Memory refers to the
brain’s way of storing facts and figures (as opposed to happenings).
This isn’t
natural. It takes tricks or hard work to record something as simple as a phone
number.
So there are two different kinds of knowledge.
Natural knowledge is the
child‘s way; it is instantly available without thinking, and it can last a
lifetime.
Artificial knowledge is the
adult’s favorite; we have to think about it in order to use it, and it‘s easily
forgotten.
Forgetting
is an attribute of artificial knowledge and plays little or no part in natural
language acquisition.
But our students didn’t know this, and when they returned
after being away for some time they thought they would have forgotten a certain
amount.
But we were in for a surprise.
They often reported that they were
actually ahead of where they left off.
(I myself experienced the same thing
after a five-month break from my natural acquisition of Swatow Chinese).
How
can we explain this? It looks like we don’t learn language in class at
all.
We just store away memories of what
happened there and subconsciously sift language out of these memories later.
But memories consist of happenings’ not
words.
Sure we can build knowledge out of happenings-but a language?
Where do
the sounds of new words come from?
Well it looks like we’ve got a third kind of
knowledge.
A kind that grows out of repeated traces carried by memories.
Every
trace that eventually grows into a word is associated with a happening.
We
remember only the happenings’ not the traces; but the brain records the traces
as well.
(Psychologists have detected these traces and refer to their recording
as ‘priming‘) Now words have both meanings and sounds.
And in natural language
acquisition, the meanings are distilled from memories, while the sounds
accumulate from the sound traces carried by these memories.
The brain can’t use sound traces to speak with, but it can
use them to build language with. It’s
the recognition of this fact that is the whole difference between ALG and other
natural approaches.
Now
the brain continues to build language out of memories of happenings and traces
of sounds while the students are away.
Class time can be compared with eating a
meal.
Digestion and growth take place
later.
Earlier
we spoke of ‘building language in the wrong place - - the place that
thinks’.
And from that point on we have
been contrasting two different kinds of brain activity.
Let’s compare them by
lists.
‘Try‘ ‘Let‘
conscious subconscious
memory memories
and traces
facts and figures happenings
‘tricks and hard work’ ‘recorded
in an instant’
teach and learn pick
up
artificial knowledge natural
knowledge
artificial language use natural
language acquisition
have to think don’t
have to think
contrive improvise
easily forgotten stored
for life
muscle control image
control
the adult’s way the
child’s way
But a
theory built out of vague words like these isn’t going to be very productive.
We need concrete units in our theory - - things that we can point to in space
and in time.
And we want those parts to be the actual things that are involved
in processes like understanding, learning, and speaking.
In other words, we want
a theory built out of neurons, or areas of the brain, or something like that.
Of
course we don’t know enough about the brain to actually do this, but we can at
least try to place our vague words somewhere in the brain.
Pictures of
different parts of the brain in textbooks of neuroanatomy, for example, reveal
different kinds of neurons stacked in different ways and affording different
kinds of computing activity.
We can visualize our two lists as being in two
different rooms in the brain; one labeled ‘try’ and the other one ‘let’.
The
important thing is not that these areas are in different places (in fact, it is
possible that they are interspersed), but that they do different things; that
is, they process information from the receptors in different ways.
Now we’re
suggesting that the baby is born with the ‘let’ room, while the ‘try room
slowly develops to an operable stage by age 10-12.
The adult, then, has both
rooms, and he switches from one to the other as required by the task.
But
modern education seeks to increase the use of the ‘try’ room, even when the
‘let’ room would be more appropriate.
And the adult language student is caught
in a conflict: natural forces are trying to turn his switch to ‘let’; while the
forces from years of schooling are trying to turn it to ‘try’.
This
distinction has long since been noticed by others. W. Timothy Gallwey calls it
‘Self 1’ and ‘Self 2’.
And Krashen calls
it ‘conscious’ and ‘subconscious’.
We’re just trying to make the same
distinction more concrete by picturing it as different neural hardware in the
brain.
We are assuming two points which are unproven and thus open
to argument.
1. A theoretical
assumption: The brain does indeed have the different capabilities described in
this section.
2. A finding from
practice: Natural language acquisition is indeed both possible and practicable
for adults.
If we
really want to know how language acquisition works, we need to understand how
our receptors receive input from the outside and then process it into
language.
After observing this happen in
our students for many years as well as experiencing it within ourselves, we’ve
come up with a budding brain theory to explain it. But this is not the place
for such a theory, and we will deal with it in later publications.
For our present
purposes, all we need is to give a feeling that when left to itself the
language will inevitably form - and form perfectly.
And we can do this a lot
better with a simple comparison than with an abstruse and incomplete theory.
Here’s the comparison.
If we
let rain fall on a given terrain, one and only one river system can
result.
And no engineer is needed.
Nor could an engineer duplicate the system if
he tried.
As
long as we don’t interfere (that is, as long as we just ‘let’ it happen), the
building of a given river system depends on only three things; the weather
(wind and rain), the terrain (the composition and shape of the ground) , and
gravity.
An elaborate river system will inevitably be carved in one and only
one way (with minor variations) from a given kind of weather acting on a given
terrain. And if an engineer ‘tried’ to influence the formation of this system,
he could only upset it in an irreversible way.
In
like manner, as long as we don’t interfere, the building of a given language in
a given individual depends on only three things; the language input (like the
weather), the nature of the language part of the brain (like the terrain), and
the chemistry of neural transmission (like gravity).
A person’s native language
is not the result of building the neural structures that we call language to
match a pre-existing plan.
It is the inevitable result of a given neural
structure being buffeted by a given kind of input.
And if we try in any way to
influence this formation, we can only upset it in an irreversible way.
The
typical way that adults interfere with the process is to try to speak from a
trace (before the full sound has been formed).
But since the brain can’t use
traces to speak with, the only way they can do this is to build the complete
sound themselves (either from sounds in their native language or from their
knowledge of phonetics). And once they do this, there is no going back.
Subsequent buffeting will act on what they‘ve already done to the terrain.
Compare this with a man-made channel in the
river system.
Once it starts carrying water, the engineer can’t restore the
overall system to what it would have been no matter how hard he tries.
And
‘what it would have been’ (in the case of language) is precisely that language
that native speakers speak.
THREE
– PUTTING ALG IN THE CLASSROOM
We
look at children who have moved to a new country, and we see them ‘listen,
giggle, and stare’.
Then we watch adults who have married into a jungle village
that speaks a different language.
And we see them just ‘tag along’ (the men on
the hunt, the women in the gardens and kitchens) and ‘sitting around the fire’
(for nighttime story telling).
Both
types are using the child’s secret; ears open, mouths shut, and no deadlines.
And both become near-native within two years.
Then we look into language
classrooms around the world, and we see just the opposite; ears practically
closed (the students are relying on
their eyes instead), mouths open, and constant deadlines.
And hardly any of
these students ever become near-native.
But now that we know that the adult
brain can use the child’s secret, we’re ready for the next question; can we
adapt this secret to the needs of modern students?
And we see two
possibilities.
Either ‘bottle it’ for classroom use (taking our cue from
‘sitting around the fire’) or get out of the classroom and ‘tag along’.
Just
how can we go about ‘bottling it’?
The
secret seems to lie in the channel that the input uses.
In the nurseries and the African villages,
the ‘let’ channel is always open, and happenings pour in to become memories
(from which the brain later makes language).
Also there is unlimited patience.
But when you put adults in a classroom and set a date for successful
completion, the ‘try’ channel automatically switches on.
Words pour in (instead of happenings), and
become facts (instead of memories).
And
all this takes place in the conscious thinking brain (instead of the
subconscious language brain).
So the
essential precondition is to keep the ‘try‘ channel closed.
Two things are needed.
First, the happenings must be so interesting
(fun, exciting, suspenseful, etc.), that the students forget that a new
language is being used.
And second, the
students understanding must be high enough to keep them tuned in - and this
means 60-80% from the very first day!
It
takes a lot of work to train guides how to maintain adequate levels of both
interest and understanding at the beginning level.
But once they get there, it is a delight for
both students and guides.
FOUR –
MEASURING ALG
Learning
usually depends on the varying levels of intelligence, motivation, and hard
work of the students, and the usual way to measure
this learning is to test each
student.
But natural language acquisition depends only on exposure; so it’s a lot easier (and a lot more accurate) to just
measure the amount of exposure (actually the amount of understanding).
With babies
we measure their progress by their age.
If someone says her little boy is 21 months old, that tells us more
about how much language he knows than any test could.
For children and adults, though, the rate of
input is far less constant than it is with babies, and we have to find a way to
count or estimate the number of hours of talk they have understood. (This is the subject of the next
section.)
As a
result of years of study and more than 40 years of observing the progress and
abilities of literally thousands of students of second languages from over 50
different countries and cultures, we have found the following equation to be
remarkably accurate.
(Please note that as
you read through this section and follow the development of it, you may be
tempted to discount our conclusions based on your own experience or that of
someone you know.
If you save your
exceptions until later and follow our reasoning however, you will probably see
that we account for such factors as our thoughts develop.)
The BASIC LANGUAGE
ACQUISITION EQUATION: y = 1-e-kx
where y is
how much language they know (1 = native).
x is how many hours they have understood.
k is the acquisition constant: .0018
e is the natural logarithm base: 2.718
If a student accumulates 1000 hours of understanding Thai,
for example, his acquisition of Thai will be 83%.
Or if we want to know how long it would take a student to
get to 90% (this is a degree of fluency that structural students hardly ever
attain), the equation tells us 1300 hours of understanding.
We usually think of complete immersion as the ultimate in
exposure, but let’s look at a typical example.
Suppose you’re exposed to speaking
situations for 8 hours a day (meals, chatting, games, etc.).
This isn’t non-stop talking, though, and it
may come to only 4 hours of actual talk.
And if half of this talk is your own, that’s only 2 hours of
listening.
An if you’re understanding
50%, that’s only 1 hour of understanding
a day.
It would take you almost 4 years
to accumulate the 1400 hours needed to become ‘fluent’.
(We use ‘fluent’ to mean ‘speaking correctly and without hesitation about everyday matters’ : roughly, y = 88%).
More often,
foreigners live with their own families, and their exposure consists only of
managing their daily affairs in the new language.
This may seem like a lot of exposure, but
when you add up the few seconds here and few seconds there and multiply this by
your percentage of understanding, it rarely exceeds 10 minutes a day.
At this rate, fluency would take 23 years.
Hours of understanding isn’t always clear in terms of months
and years: normal life is so irregularly packed with talk, and talk is so
irregularly understood. But ALG classes
consist of non-stop talking and offer a much higher percentage of understanding
than real life does.
Our first equation assumed that the student was doing
everything right.
This always works for
children, but only occasionally for adults.
For even though adults can do it right, they usually don’t.
So the measure of how correctly an adult does
it (we’ll call it C, for ceiling) becomes a crucial addition to our
equation.
It will be convenient to
express C as a percentage, so y will also be a percentage; and 100 instead of
1, will be the measure of a native speaker.
Now to figure out how much a student knows (y), we’ve got to
know how many hours (h) the student has experienced, how much he has understood
(u), and how he has been processing those experiences. (C).
h is simply the
student’s attendance.
u can be
estimated from the student’s ‘responses’ during each hour. (We all tend to monitor a person’s
understanding in normal communication though we are normally unconscious of
doing this.)
C can be
estimated from how much or little the student tries to repeat what he hears,
the sort of questions asked, etc.
Periodically, the guides enter grades for the students based
on their own perceptions.
Once entered
into the computer, we are able to monitor student progress.
The average understanding grade for students
is around 80%.
Ceilings vary much more,
but for a typical, adult student who begins with ALG the ceiling average is
around 95%.
The first 13 students to show signs of natural speaking in
our ALG classes were Chinese and Southeast Asians – even though the majority of
our students were Westerners.
It was
only after we expanded our course to more than 1000 hours that other students
started to reach this level.
We soon saw
that any level that required 1000 for Westerners and Japanese could be reached
in about 800 hours by Chinese and about 600 hours by Southeast Asians.
This suggested a ‘language ease’ factor (L)
for our equation.
For the Chinese
learning Thai, L = .8; and for most Southeast Asians, L = .6.
y = C(1-e-kx/L)
The language ease has come to be called the Native Language
Factor but there is more and more evidence that culture rather than language is
the bigger influence.
So far, we have had little experience with the native
language factor from English to French, German, and Spanish; but if
Malaysian-Thai is .
6 without the help of cognate vocabulary (the languages
aren’t related and the only similarities are in culture and type of grammar), we would expect
something more like .
4 for these European languages.
These and other guesses are shown below.
Readers with better information can sharpen
up these guesses.
The hours and weeks
refer to the amount of time required to reach a fluency of 88%.
For the calculations below, the understanding
factor is set to .
8 and the ceiling factor is set to .95.
L
Factor Examples Hours
1.0 English-Thai 1800
1.0 Japanese-Thai 1800
.8 Chinese-Thai 1450
.6 Malay-Thai 1100
.4 English-French 720
.4 English-German 720
.4 English-Spanish 720
.2 Portuguese-Spanish 370
.1 Thai-Laotian 180
.1 Norwegian-Swedish 180
.06 Norwegian-Danish 110
There is yet one more factor that must
be considered.
The quality of the
program affects how students in the program progress.
In life, a baby automatically experiences
everything that happens – and whatever else they are, those experiences are
100% real.
Once you put adults into a classroom (or any
other setting), the quality of the experience is affected by what the adults do.
Adults don’t interact with other adults as they do with children.
We call this the reality factor (r).
The more the experiences in and out of a
classroom replicate what happens in real life settings with children, (in terms
of quality not content) the greater the reality factor.
Our Thai Program in Bangkok has a reality
factor of .
83 while the English Program for Thais at the time of this writing
is currently at .
7 and rising slowly.
(A
closer look at the reality factor would include the guide quality, the quality
of memories, and the intensity of the experiences.)
People often ask for the fastest
possible way to learn a language.
Maximizing C, of course, is what this article is all about.
It goes without saying that students who want
the fastest possible course should do it 100% right.
There are other variables.
The amount of time a student is able to
absorb experiences is one of them.
At
one hour a week, progress is very slow.
What about much more?
Many of the
students in the Thai Program take as many as 30 hours per week and that’s
mainly in a classroom setting.
By moving
out of the classroom and scheduling activities in a dormitory atmosphere, we
have been able to go as high as 50 hours per week.
We’ve called it the “Max Program” and more
recently, ALG World Edu-Tours.
It
involves experiencing life together with the guides.
The weekly routine includes classes, meals,
morning exercises, evening games, nighttime entertainment, and sightseeing.
All of this takes place in the new language,
and all of it is controlled for maximal understanding.
One major advantage of the Edu-Tours is that they
not only maximizes time, they also maximize the reality factor.
If a school is able to provide for a reality
factor of .
8, then Edu-Tours should be able to provide experiences at 1.
FIVE – PUTTING IT IN SCHOOLS
We believe that almost every language
school, department, course, or class in the world could do its job better with
ALG.
But we’re not suggesting for a
minute that any of them should immediately try to change over.
We feel certain that they couldn’t do it.
It isn’t easy to start up an ALG course and
any hurried attempt would almost certainly fail.
Most universities teach languages at
one hour a day plus homework, and they give tests, grades, and credits.
We could put ALG into this framework by
having the students attend two hours a day, without homework, for the same
credit.
Grades are calculated by the
equation.
For an ‘easy’ language (like
French, German or Spanish), fluency would take 5 semesters (for 600 hours of
understanding at 80%) and give 25 credits.
But for a ‘hard’ language (like Chinese, Japanese, or Thai), fluency
would take 12 semesters for 60 credits.
This doesn’t seem to be practicable.
But many universities already have intensive summer courses in
languages, and this should give us an answer.
During a 12 week summer term, ALG could be taught for 7 hours a
day.
And even better, a Max Course could
be offered.
With a Max Course, French
could be taught to fluency in a single summer.
Probably the most practicable solution for teaching Japanese to fluency
would be 2 summers of a Max Course plus 2 hours a day during the school year
between the two summers.
The summers
would offer 600 hours of understanding each, and the 2-hour semesters would
offer 120 hours each for a total of 1440 hours of understanding and 60 credits.
(At the time of this revision, ALG
World is currently developing the ability to partner with anyone who might be
interested in using the method.
This
allows for programs of any kind to utilize and build upon the foundational work
that has already been done.
Any
interested parties should contact admin@algworld.com for more information on materials or
franchise opportunities.)
NOTES
1.
See The Listening Approach by Brown and Palmer. Longman,
1988.
2.
See The Natural Approach by Krashen and Terrell. Alemany
Press.
3.
Many people have commented on this. See, for example, page 27 of Learning a
Foreign Language by Eugene A. Nida.
Friendship Press. 1957
4.
See Behaviour: The Control of Perception, Aldine Publishing
Co., 1973, and Living Control Systems, Gravel Switch, Kentucky, 1989.
5.
See The Inner Game of Tennis, Random House, 1974.
ليست هناك تعليقات:
إرسال تعليق