Acquisition question

[Ever Student]

A simple question; Can you please answer me?

Is acquisition "conscious" or "unconscious"?

 

[Raymott]

A simple question; Can you please answer me?

Is acquisition "conscious" or "unconscious"?

According to which theorist? There's no easy answer and whole books have been written on this.
You need to consider such factors as Noticing, Awareness, Attention, Focusing, immediate and longterm memory.
Do you distinguish between acquisition and learning, as Krashen did?
How much interaction do you believe is necessary?
Do you believe in an innate language device, as Chomsky did/does?

My subjective opinion: In children learning their L1, it is largely unconscious. But learning an L2 by an adult is largely a conscious process.
What do you think?

 

[Ever Student]

According to which theorist? There's no easy answer and whole books have been written on this.
You need to consider such factors as Noticing, Awareness, Attention, Focusing, immediate and longterm memory.
Do you distinguish between acquisition and learning, as Krashen did?
How much interaction do you believe is necessary?
Do you believe in an innate language device, as Chomsky did/does?

My subjective opinion: In children learning their L1, it is largely unconscious. But learning an L2 by an adult is largely a conscious process.
What do you think?

Hi,
I do know that my answers lead to your laughter, but let me say what I think;

-Well, according to Krashen acquisiton is unconscious and learning is conscious.

- Interaction should be between you and me as a listener and a speaker or a writer and a reader. I think that if there was not Interaction, learning language woul fail, like "Gene" that she couldn't learn her L1 after her puberty. The left hemispher of her brain devoted to language didn't advance for not using first language. Because, to me, she didn't have interaction.

And, also, I think for missing interaction in GTM, Natrual Method, ALM classrooms and etc. to learn a foreign language, we can simply see the students fail to communicate with outside of the class.

- As far as I know, learning language is not innate as Chomsky believed. If it was like that, Gene would learn it in the way that birds know how to fly or that you meet your needs naturally through eating, drinking and so on; nevertheless, I read in a newspaper a couple of years ago that linguists came to conclusion acquiring language was, somehow, related to "innateness". I don't know how much such a source is reliable!


Although I read much that children learn their language unconsciously, I think that they acquire their first language consciously because they can control their language and they don't use it without thinking.

 

[Raymott]

Hi,
I do know that my answers lead to your laughter,
Not at all!

but let me say what I think;
-Well, according to Krashen acquisiton is unconscious and learning is conscious.
Yes
- Interaction should be between you and me as a listener and a speaker or a writer and a reader. I think that if there was not Interaction, learning language woul fail, like "Gene" that she couldn't learn her L1 after her puberty. The left hemispher of her brain devoted to language didn't advance for not using first language. Because, to me, she didn't have interaction.

And, also, I think for missing interaction in GTM, Natrual Method, ALM classrooms and etc. to learn a foreign language, we can simply see the students fail to communicate with outside of the class.
Yes, I agree.

- As far as I know, learning language is not innate as Chomsky believed. If it was like that, Gene would learn it in the way that birds know how to fly or that you meet your needs naturally through eating, drinking and so on; nevertheless, I read in a newspaper a couple of years ago that linguists came to conclusion acquiring language was, somehow, related to "innateness". I don't know how much such a source is reliable!
It's still a source of contention. Wild children who do not learn language after puberty are not an argument against an innate learning device, because you also have to consider the Critical Period Hypothesis as well.

Although I read much that children learn their language unconsciously, I think that they acquire their first language consciously because they can control their language and they don't use it without thinking.

As I implied in my last post, "consciousness" is generally not the quality that researchers look at, but rather how much attention or awareness is involved. Obviously a totally unconscious child won't learn much.
"Conscious" has some subtly different meanings. For example, a child might be thinking and concentrating without being conscious (aware) that he is learning a language. He might be able to acquire language without attention to what is happening.

 

[Ever Student]

As I implied in my last post, "consciousness" is generally not the quality that researchers look at, but rather how much attention or awareness is involved. Obviously a totally unconscious child won't learn much.
"Conscious" has some subtly different meanings. For example, a child might be thinking and concentrating without being conscious (aware) that he is learning a language. He might be able to acquire language without attention to what is happening.

Hi,
And you mean that they don't think if they are learning "a language". Thank you.

 

[Raymott]

Hi,
And you mean that they don't think if they are learning "a language". Thank you.

No, I'm sure I didn't say that.
The only time I mentioned thinking was here:
For example, a child might be thinking and concentrating without being conscious (aware) that he is learning a language.
I never said he might be learning and not thinking.

 

[Ever Student]

Aha! Sorry for my getting wr