1

Unit 2: Reaction Paper

 

Unit 2: Reaction Paper

Leah Moriarty 

EDU653– Second Language Acquisition

Professor Laurie Winek

March 19th, 2023 

 
2
Unit 2: Reaction Paper
In Gardner’s How Our Children Use Language: A Case Study, the reader receives a

comprehensive explanation of first language acquisition from early childhood through

adolescence and the milestones and accompany the journey. For example, the age of six indicates

a time developmentally when a child’s immersive experiences with grammar are less

impressionable, which is why second language acquisition in later years will prove to likely be

challenging (Gardner, 1995). Learning language in the stages of early childhood is a process

rooted in intimate familial experiences, while later in childhood, learning the skills of reading

and writing is much more deliberate and codified (Gardner, 1995).

Gardner then uses “Standard English”, a sort of academic dialect of English as a marker

for a student’s success and signifier of language comprehension in a school setting. While they

briefly mention how the language of an individual is a direct expression of a single, unique

experience in first language acquisition, and that the widespread comprehension of any style of

speech is enough for a dialect to be considered legitimate, Gardner continues to rely on Standard

English as a means of assessing the value of language development for adolescent aged students.

They then explain what a learner lacks in Standard English proficiency, “the non-Standard

English user is at a disadvantage when discussing, in spoken or written form, canonical texts,”

(Gardner, 1995). This lays the groundwork for a study conducted in which high school aged

students were provided with writing prompts in reference to the learners’ favorite literary works.

The study concluded that the author and learners had differing perspectives on valuable literary

works, and that students whose literary experiences were not aligned with Standard English

performed poorly on the assessment and were not as adept in expressing ideas around reading

experiences as their peers who were more comfortable with Standard English (Gardner, 1995).
3
Unit 2: Reaction Paper
I am fascinated by the process of early childhood language acquisition and how it is

connected to academic performance in later years for school aged and adolescent learners.

Gardner effectively illustrates that pipeline and how our earliest experiences with language then

develops into the quest for literacy in the academic arena. Gibson refers to it as the “Pathways

from the early language and communication environment to literacy,” (Gibson, 2021, p. 2). The

ways we are socialized as young children prior to schooling shapes who we are linguistically and

who we will be as students, readers and storytellers of our own. I am particularly intrigued by the

concept of Universal Grammar, identified as, “the knowledge of grammar with which children

are born; a general grammar that is applicable to all the languages of the world,” (Ambrige &

Lieven, 2011, p. 122). In this way, we are born storytellers, we are born with the desire to

socialize and the ways we do so are correct if whomever we are in conversation with are

understanding us. Purba goes further to explain how universal language acquisition is when

stating that “all children from birth have been equipped with a common mechanical conscience

for all human abilities, including language skills,” (Purba et. al, 2022, p. 2). Babies, like any

learner, are not necessarily blank slates, but have impulses and individualistic desires just as any

learner has. As those babies grow within their familial frameworks in context to their homes,

neighborhoods, caretakers and peers, those outside influences shape who they are once they enter

the classroom. Gardner does a nice job of illustrating this process and providing context to what

a learner is, a product of an experience. That is who shows up to class. If that student has been

read to each night or is surrounded by lots of talkative family members or watches hours of

television, that is the linguistic and grammatical base that their academics will be built upon.

Moving from this to the study and assessment of the students is where I begin to deviate from

Gardner’s perspective.
4
Unit 2: Reaction Paper
Though I have a deep appreciation for reading, I take issue with the way that Gardner

seems to project their own ambiguous hierarchical literary values on the students they are

involving in this study. I am also aware of the value in English proficiency, based on the research

of Erk et. al, “Globalization and technological progress have positioned English as the language

of international communication, so English language proficiency is increasingly viewed as

capital that affords better education and opportunities in the global labour market,” (Erk et. al.,

2021, p.2). Imparting strong reading and writing skills on learners is imperative to their

professional futures. However, there is never only one way of teaching any lesson. A single

educator’s standard of value is not enough to holistically asses students. The concept of

“canonical texts” itself is ambiguous and pretentious, as American education has typically

offered a very limited scope in curricular offerings for literacy courses. As an educator who loves

to read, I value any learner the same whether they choose to read graphic novels, scripture, Judy

Blume or Toni Morrison. Perhaps students’ inability to articulate their reading experiences in

writing is in part due to the fact that their education does not affirm their experiences, their

dialectical identities or their strengths. There are ways to teach fundamentals in grammar that

does not delegitimize the dialects that live in our communities. What I do not read in the article

is how Gardner plans to promote stronger writing skills and reading comprehension for this age

group. I would be less concerned with drilling “canonical texts” if students are not engaged in

them. Maybe some of those texts do not engage modern learners because they simply are no

longer relevant. Though I may have enjoyed my public school reading list as a young learner, I

cannot say that it offered unique perspectives. Rarely was I given stories I could connect to.

Those literary experiences were sought after on my own. Those literary experiences were the

ones that shaped me. Literary offerings in curriculum should offer diversity in perspective,
5
Unit 2: Reaction Paper
thought and dialect as well. We can allow the same for our learners’ classroom discussions and

compositions.

As educators, we must see our learners as individuals at any age, even in early childhood.

Each student has experiences with language even if they do not speak. No learner is a blank

slate, as their past immersive experiences shape who they are in a classroom. Every learner was

born to comprehend language, to socialize and communicate. Knowing that of each single

student then can inform the ways that we build curriculum for them, create space for them and

assess them.

It is the responsibility of the educator to find creative ways of affirming their learners’

identities and perspectives while challenging them with new ideas and skills. We need to work

on teaching reading and writing skills in ways that effectively help learners retain grammar,

express their ideas and honor who they are linguistically. We have to challenge ourselves to offer

stories that communicate varying dialects and demonstrate the richness in our language through

multiple lenses. Wang offers great insight to two different methods of teaching English,

“the prescriptive grammarian specifies what is right or wrong while descriptive

grammarian tries to avoid making judgments about correctness and concentrates on

describing and explaining the way people want to say,” (Wang, 2019).

Depending on the needs of individual students, there can be a balance of those two methods. We

can indicate what is wrong and what is right. We can also honor the correctness in

comprehension. The purpose of language acquisition at any age, for babies and adults alike, is to

be able to engage in the community around us. If our peers understand us, then we are doing

something right. The methods of teaching grammar, reading and writing can be dictated by the

kinds of communities our learners want to see themselves in. Students who see themselves in a
6
Unit 2: Reaction Paper
U.S. university require different pedagogical offerings than students who see themselves in a

trade or community outside of academia. There should be more flexible standards in the ways

that we teach English language and honor that various shades of it.
7
Unit 2: Reaction Paper
References

Ambridge, B., & Lieven, E. (2011). Child language acquisition contrasting theoretical
approaches. Cambridge Univ. Press.

Gibson, J. L., This Arts and Humanities Research Council [AH/N004671/1] was supported by
the Economic and Social Research Council [ES/P001955/1 and ES/P001955/2]; Medical
Research Council [102215/2/13/2]; National Institute for Health Resear. (n.d.). Pathways
from the early language and communication environment to literacy outcomes at the end
of primary school; the roles of Language Development and Social Development. Taylor &
Francis. Retrieved March 17, 2023, from
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03054985.2020.1824902

Gardner, A. (1995). HOW OUR CHILDREN USE LANGUAGE: A CASE STUDY . Points of
View Reference Center, 10(6).

Erk, M., & Ručević, S. (2021). Early English language acquisition: How early is early enough?
Suvremena Lingvistika, 47(92). https://doi.org/10.22210/suvlin.2021.092.02

Purba, R., Resmi, R., Saputra, N., & Herman, H. (2022). Exploring the teaching of language
variation use from early children's acquisition at school. Jurnal Obsesi : Jurnal Pendidikan
Anak Usia Dini, 6(6), 5446–5453. https://doi.org/10.31004/obsesi.v6i6.2907

Wang, S. (2019). The application of task-based approach in English grammar teaching in junior
high schools. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 10(2), 304.
https://doi.org/10.17507/jltr.1002.12