Second Language Learning Misconceptions

As the title of article suggests, the article focuses on the common myths and misconceptions about second language learning (SLA). It points out five misconceptions that people normally hold towards SLA especially on younger learners, and suggests more adaptable educational methods are needed for different types of students.

The first myth about SLA is that it’s easier for children to learn second language than adults. Many people believe that children are better language learners than adults based on the claim that children’s brains are more flexible. This standpoint reminds me of the innatist perspective on language learning. As Noam Chomsky hypothesizes that there is the universal grammar (UG) inserted in children’s brains, children are

First, the article cites a research that children in bilingual classes learn equivalently to those in English-only programs. I think the finding opposes to the contrastive analysis hypothesis (CAH), which explains learners’ errors as a result from the transfer of learner’s first language. While teachers or parents may want to create the English-only context for the fear that children’s first language interferes their success of mastering the second language, the decision can be harmful on the long run. As the article cites researchers’ words that language acquisition in academic uses may take at least 4 years, learners’ first language actually is a beneficial tool to supplement the understanding of the academic contents. Thus, it’s not a good idea to eliminate learner’s first language in the process of second language learning. Bilingual classrooms may be more effective in second language teaching than English-only

Actually, children who are proficient at face-to-face communication can have problem in academic language usages. Yet, teachers may assume that children’s oral abilities parallels to their overall language competence, and instruct the more complex subject in all-English classroom that in reality, hinders children’s academic reading and writing. Thus, the article’s appeal out of the forth myth is similar to the third one, which is to make home language available to children learning the second language. And I think the argument seems to echo Steven Krashen’s input hypothesis that acquisition occurs when the individual is exposed to language that is comprehensible with i + 1. To achieve the step beyond the current language level, students’ first language is helpful because it enhances the comprehension needed to build the bridge from i to