💾 Archived View for tanelorn.city › ~vidak › old-blog › ilyenkov-leontev-linguistics.gemini captured on 2020-11-07 at 01:35:08. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
⬅️ Previous capture (2020-09-24)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
---
generator: pandoc
title: 'Evald V. Ilyenkov and A. N. Leontev on Language Acquisition'
viewport: 'width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0, user-scalable=yes'
---
2019-11-21T16:03:00+08:00
0.0 Introduction
================
This paper will describe, and then compare and contrast, two very
different 'second-language' acquisition activities. The underlying
philosophical viewpoints that underpin each of the activities will also
be drawn out and discussed. The advantages and short-comings of each of
the approaches underlying the two activities considered in the paper
will be elucidated. The two activities and respective
language-acquisition approaches discussed in this paper are (a) a
memorisation activity, and its corresponding behaviourist underpinning;
and (b) a social peer-interview report exercise and its corresponding
social constructivist underpinning. It will be argued that while
memorisation activities such as the one discussed in the paper are
almost universally incorporated as some component of 'second-language'
acquisition, its philosophical underpinning is fundamentally flawed.
Wrote-learning and memorisation are a function of the wide-spread social
norm that classrooms are the best place to learn languages. Memorisation
caters to the rationalisation of education as an 'outcomes based'
practice, which reifies human existence. Against the behaviourist
philosophical underpinning of memorisation activities and its attendant
consequences for education, it will be argued that a social
constructivist position should be taken towards language acquisition,
such as that embodied in the chosen activity presented.
1.0.0 -- Main Section
=====================
1.1.0 -- Description of Activities
----------------------------------
The first activity considered in this paper is a very simple one, but it
is more or less ubiquitous within language acquisition programs. It is
actually two different activities, but since the theoretical assumptions
underpinning those two activities are so similar, they will be
considered together as one unit, to give a broader and fuller
understanding of those theoretical assumptions.
The first part of activity one is the memorisation of common English
phrases such as 'good morning!', 'how are you?', and 'congratulations!'
The L1 associated with this part of the activity is French, although one
could just as easily transfer the activity into any other L1. The
substantial content of the activity consists in having the English
phrases (L2) to be learned placed alongside their equivalent French
counterparts (L1). The execution of the activity could be oral, aural,
or written. It would involve memorising the form and content of the
English (L2) phrases with regard to the original French (L1) form and
content.
The second part of the activity is the memorisation of English
homophones. Homophones are words that sound the same, but have different
meanings, and sometimes different spellings. Homophones are particularly
difficult to learn because they seem at first quite arbitrary. This
appearance of arbitrariness usually leads to activities such as this
one, which are based on memorisation and wrote-learning. The purpose of
this activity is to memorise the English (L2) words that are equivalent
to the learner's L1. Again, the execution of this activity could be
oral, aural, written, or some combination of the three.
The second activity considered by this paper is called 'conversation
grid'. A grid of questions is drawn up, and learners must converse and
interact with one-another using their L2 in order to record answers to
the questions on the grid. The activity is first modelled by the teacher
and another student, or by two students, and then learners go off by
themselves and learn via their peers. A key facet of this activity is
that it stresses minimal teacher authority. Learners are encouraged to
try dialogue for themselves and 'muddle through'. The activity can be as
easy or as difficult as the level of command of English of the learners
requires. Beginner learners would discuss and record information about
other's hobbies, likes and dislikes, or occupations. More advanced
learners could discuss more abstract topics, and could be required to
write more fuller and complex written answers to the prescribed
questions. The purpose of activity two is to involve learners in social
interaction, as opposed to the first activity. Activity two emphasises
the communication of meaning, as opposed to the mastery of technical
linguistic forms.
1.2.0 -- Theoretical Underpinnings of Activities
------------------------------------------------
The two activities that were chosen to be considered in this paper are
based on very different views about personhood, the mind, and learning.
The two different views manifested in the above two activities will now
be considered.
1.2.1 -- Activity One
---------------------
The theoretical assumptions about the mind and the person that underpin
the first activity can be collectively labelled 'behaviourism'.
Behaviourism, as its name suggests, asserts that the truth about
someone's learning is located in their behaviour, and not in their
consciousness. It is argued that behaviourism is a persuasive way of
viewing learning because of the claim that 'behavioural change can be
perceived objectively and can therefore be measured' (Louw, 1993: 220).
Behaviourism proceeds from the view that
what we have learned cannot be directly perceived; but the resulting
change in behaviour or performance can be. On the basis of our
performance, it can be deduced what and how much we have learned
(Louw, 1993: 220).
Behaviourism proceeds from the vulgar materialist and empiricist view of
the mind that asserts that because consciousness does not disclose
itself as physical or material substance, it shouldn't be considered as
actually real. The resulting theoretical framework that results from
this philosophical assumption resolves all human behaviour into
'stimuli' and 'responses'. The process by which a stimulus results in a
response is called a 'reflex'. Behaviourism treats learning as
'conditioning'. Conditioning is the behaviourist concept for the process
whereby a person's the physical environment is altered in such a way
that they develop new reflexes in order to deal with new stimuli.
1.2.2 -- Activity Two
---------------------
The learning theory called 'social constructivism' underpins the second
activity. If behaviourism can be said to be the 'most primitive' form of
descriptive and explanatory paradigm for learning, social constructivism
could be said to be 'two notches above it'.
The branch of social constructivism that will be accounted for here will
be what has been termed 'activity theory'. Activity theory developed out
of Lev Vygotsky's research on educational psychology. It is premised on
dialectical materialism, a metaphysics that was developed in an attempt
to resolve the 'antimonies \[contradictions\] of bourgeois thought'
(Ilyenkov, 1977). Behaviourism is one side of the main contradiction
within bourgeois thought. It asserts that truth is purely objective and
measurable. The other side of the contradiction is idealism, which
asserts that truth is more or less purely seated in the mind. (Whether
or not cognitivism falls into this latter category is a matter of
debate. Some argue cognitivism is merely an eclectic form of
behaviourism.)
Dialectical materialism, in order to resolve this contradiction (what
describes explains human being and thought? The environment or human
mental states?), asserts that 'it is not \[a person's\] consciousness
that determines their existence, but on the contrary, their social
existence that determines their consciousness' (Lukacs, 1971: 18).
Activity theory expands on this metaphysics by asserting that language
is but one component of a body of objective, but immaterial, socially
constructed thought-forms that mediate subjective human interaction with
the objective environment (Leontev, 1977).
1.3.0 -- Discussion
-------------------
The purpose of this section, the discussion section, is to compare and
contrast the two lessons described above. The purpose of this is to
explain how they are influenced by the above two different theories of
language learning. From this explanation an argument will be built that
asserts that social constructivism points to a deeper and fuller
understanding of second-language acquisition. Very briefly, the
behaviourist recipe for 'learning' an L2 (N.B. this method represents
'classical conditioning', as opposed to 'operant conditioning') is as
follows:
- Identify the learner's L1. The learner's L1 is, for the purposes of
the L2 acquisition, an 'unconditioned stimulus' (UCS) which produces
'unconditioned responses' (UCR). The UCR in this case is the
learner's comprehension of linguistic meaning.
- Pair the UCS with a neutral stimulus, the L2 sought to be 'learned'.
This is memorisation and wrote learning.
- Remove the learner's L1 from the learning environment. Apply to the
learner the neutral stimulus, the L2, the 'conditioned stimulus'
(CS), and this will elicit comprehension in the learner of the L2, a
'conditioned response' (CR) (Louw, 1993: 224).
Abstractly:
- UCS -\> UCR
- UCS + CS -\> UCR
- CS -\> CR
There are two observations that we can make about the first activity and
its behaviourist theoretical underpinning, and they are all a function
of its adherence to a strict notion of positivism. First, the
acquisition of the L2 is treated as discrete 'appropriation'. In other
words, the L2 acquisition is conceptualised as a kind of mathematical
function: L2 goes in, comprehension comes out. Acquisition happens on
one plane of existence. Behaviourists might argue that memorisation
leads to a process behaviourists label 'generalisation', which means
that wrote-learned words should come to be associated with broader
contexts of communication, but as Louw & Edwards (Louw, 1993: 231)
mention, it is not clear whether generalisation is as regular and
predictable as behaviourists claim.
Second, the substance of the L2 to be learned is treated in a formalist
manner. It is treated as form without content. In other words, the L2 is
treated in almost perfect abstraction, within any regard being paid to
the kinds of contexts in which one would use the language. A possible
example of this is the complete lack of ability of the memorisation
activity to help the learner understand the pragmatics that may be
involved in communicating meaning using the words.
The fundamental basis of both of these observed problems with the
memorisation activity is that its positivistic, behaviourist
underpinning posits a view of the human mind and its learning that is
passive and 'contemplative'. It is certainly possible for a behaviourist
to maintain that language is a dynamic and evolving human construction,
but the learning process that they advocate asserts that language is a
monolithic, static body of data that is ready and able to be abstracted
and appropriated formalistically.
In this connection we can recall part of Marx's Theses on Feuerbach: The
chief defect of all materialism up to now ... is that the object,
reality, what we apprehend through our senses, is understood only in the
form of the subject or contemplation; but not as sensuous human
activity, as practice, ... (Ilyenkov, 1977: 224) (Ilyenkov's emphasis).
What this meant was that
\[people were\] considered the passive side of the subject-object
relation, as the determined member of this inter-relation.
Furthermore, man was abstracted here from the combination of social
relations and transformed into an isolated individual. The
\[human\]-environment relations were therefore interpreted as
individual to all the rest, to everything that lay outside the
individual brain and existed independently of it (Ilyenkov, 1977:
225).
But, crucially,
outside the individual, and independently of his will and
consciousness, there existed not only nature but also the social
historical environment, the world of things created by \[humanity's\]
labour, and the system of relations between \[person\] and \[person\],
developed in the labour process. In other words, not only did nature
by itself ('in itself' \[to use Kantian terminology\]) lie outside the
individual, but also humanised nature, altered by labour (Ilyenkov,
1977: 225).
The social constructivist underpinning behind the second activity seeks
to capture and help learners engage with the social historical
environment embodied within language, within the L2. Although the
activity is limited to the classroom environment, which is artificial
and abstract, it can be hoped that the practical execution of the ideas
underpinning the activity will lead to the development of skills by the
learners that will enable them to go out into the real world and use
language the way it really works: as a cultural tool, an artefact that
mediates personal access to objective reality.
The advantage of the second activity over the first is that it relies on
the active participation and involvement of the learner. By conversing
with peers and the teacher, the learner taps into language's function as
a human cultural artefact. Language is a practical, social activity that
requires more than just individualised, abstract memorisation. It
requires grounding in concrete reality in order to be truly meaningful.
In a sense it is 'situated' in different cultural activities that
require active participation, not passive memorisation (Brown, 1989).
3.0.0 -- Conclusion
===================
In this paper, two different activities with very different approaches
to language acquisition were compared and contrasted. The first
activity, based in positivistic behaviourist theoretical assumptions
about learning and the mind, treated language as an abstract,
individualised experience. This position on language acquisition was
argued to be philosophically wanting, lacking in substantiation in
concrete evidence, and normatively unappealing. It was argued that the
second activity rectified the shortcomings of the first. It viewed
language as a body of human cultural signs and understandings that
mediated subjective interaction with objective reality. Language in this
sense was argued to be dynamic, and the underpinnings of the second
activity's approach was argued to be more powerful in both a descriptive
and explanatory sense.
2154.
4.0.0 -- References
===================
- Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition
and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18, 32-42.
- Ilyenkov, E. V. (1977). Dialectical logic: essays on its history and
theory. (H. C. Creighton, Trans.) Moscow: Progress Publishers.
Retrieved from
http://www.marxists.org/archive/ilyenkov/works/essays/index.htm
- Leontev, A. N. (1977). Activity and Consciousness. In Philosophy in
the USSR: Problems of Dialectical Materialism (pp. 180-202). Moscow:
Progress Publishers. Retrieved April 5, 2014, from
http://www.marxists.org/archive/leontev/works/1977/leon1977.htm
- Louw, D., & Edwards, D. (Eds.). (1993). Psychology: an introduction
for students in southern Africa. Johannesburg: Lexicon.
- Lukacs, G. (1971). What is Orthodox Marxism? In G. Lukacs, History
and Class Consciousness (pp. 1-26). Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT
Press.