Redefining Imitation and its Role in Attaining Native-Like Fluency in Adult Second Language Acquisition

?

by Eunice Kim

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master’s?of?Arts in Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages, Hunter College of the City University of New York

1999

Essay Sponsor:

Donald R. H. Byrd, Ph.D.

May 31, 1999

?

Table of Contents

Abstract

Introduction

Development of an Imitation Theory

Definition of Imitation

Research

Conclusion

Footnotes:

Appendices:

Figure 1:? Dichotomy of language acquisition

Tables 1 and 2:? Responses of bilinguals

Bilingual Questionnaire

References

Abstract.

A holistic perspective of imitation is needed in order to apply understanding of children’s language learning behavior to adult language acquisition. The definition of imitation herein contrasts traditional perspectives of developmental psychology and second language acquisition theory which view it as a mechanism of learning. Rather, imitation is seen as a means of learning by which identification, intuition, and a character of humility play necessary roles in attainment of language fluency; in adult language acquisition, the concept applies to attainment of native-like fluency. Previous studies limit evidences of imitation to surface features such as pronunciation, then question imitation’s inception and nature. A concept of “deep-structure imitation,” so termed by H. Douglas Brown, refers to children’s ability to imitate the structure of language. This hypothesis considers the role of affective factors, such as that presented in Krashen’s Affective Filter Hypothesis, and extends the concept to include identification which precludes an emotional attachment from the language learner to the model. A comparative study of bilinguals and language learners indicate that identification is a motivational factor necessary for adult’s attainment of native-like fluency. With regard to children’s acquisition of language structure, this paper purports to present imitation as a possible framework for devising innovative research methodology and acquisition strategies.

Redefining Imitation and its Role in Attaining Native-Like Fluency in Adult Second Language Acquisition

Introduction.

On 60 Minutes, Lesley Stahl asked Henry Kissinger why he still had a German accent even though he had come to New York with his family at age 15.? He replied that he was the Kissinger who “didn’t listen” (aired March 7, 1999).? How to reach native fluency of a foreign language has been a mystery to Second Language Acquisition (SLA) theorists who, especially in the last twenty years, have developed research and methodologies constructing a matrix of concepts that pose questions to try to understand the nature of language.? Much empirical research focuses on how specific aspects of language are learned, particularly grammar.? Reaching native-like fluency concerns grammar; however, the attention it receives in illustrations such as in Selinker and Lamendella’s Interlanguage Hypothesis (1978) overshadows other aspects of language that are pertinent to the problem.? Though Mr. Kissinger’s use of English grammar is proficient enough to be considered native, his accent clearly indicates that English is not his first language.? In his situation, native pronunciation of American English is not his concern.? Yet according to SLA theory, his interlanguage has resulted; not imitating the pitch, stress and intonation of the language around him would be a viable reason for his language fossilization.

Language acquisition is a field encompassing innumerable facets of culture, linguistics, and learning theory.? Trying to understand how adults can reach native-like fluency of a second language presents a problem in gaps among the kinds of perspectives theorists have in order to gain that understanding.? Upon examination, one could presume a number of tenets and theories based on empirical evidence.? However, returning to more philosophical perspectives by departing from common associations between SLA and adult cognition would more advantageously benefit further study.

Chomsky’s (1968, 1980) linguistic postulates fostered many questions, lending credence to quantitative analyses regarding fossilization and Universal Grammar (UG) in adult SLA theories.? However, his work has often been misrepresented.? One example is the argument that his postulates imply a possibility that children have access to UG through a “language acquisition device” that somehow becomes inaccessible by adults, thus imposing a difference between first language (L1) and second language (L2) acquisition.? Chomsky’s colleague, Suzanne Flynn (1996) challenges this hypothesis and clarifies his concept in terms of SLA study.? Flynn’s parameter-setting approach bases SLA on UG concepts and distinguishes between Chomsky’s discussion of linguistic and pragmatic competence and other theorists’ perspectives.? The hypothesis developed herein endeavors to provide a descriptive treatise in support of Flynn’s argument that L1 and L2 acquisition are fundamentally the same by returning to more classical, psychological issues in redefining a commonly regarded learning aspect known as imitation.? This discussion will review concepts such as cognition, as in Piaget (1951), and identification, as defined by Sears (1965), in order to elucidate this alternative definition.

Imitation was reputed in the mid-twentieth century to be a second language learning strategy but has since been overlooked, or as in the past few decades, has been underrepresented in SLA study, and needs to be reconsidered in order to advance contemporary study and research? Although much attention was given to imitation in the 60’s and 70’s, results regarding its nature and development have been inconclusive.? H.H. Stern (1970) encouraged imitation as a language learning strategy exemplifying the way a small child learns.? Although his recommendation seems effective in principle, his description of how a child imitates alludes to mimicry which, in practice, .? To view imitation as merely mimicry ignores the role imitation plays in our intellectual and personal development.? But an important facet of learning that Stern does not miss is the manner in which we must learn—like a child.? The problem in research has been in the interpretation of what imitation is.? This paper introduces an imitation hypothesis wherein imitation is not mimicry but resembles what H.D. Brown (1987) calls “deep-structure imitation” (p. 34).? It is something that begins at a deeper level, at a point of human cognition that is not immediately observable.

Brown relegates deep-structure imitation to children’s learning, but this hypothesis considers adult learning applying how children learn with implications for affective factors.? SLA studies on affective factors have been limited mostly to conscious motivation (instrumental and integrative) and anxiety, but further speculation on emotional factors derives a means-oriented definition of imitation.? Theoretical results and empirical studies on process-oriented imitation, on the other hand, have created ambiguity rather than opened possibilities for better understanding.

Reaching deeper for issues concerning affective factors, Maslow (1970) and Murray (1964) offers concepts concerning conscious and unconscious motivation and intrinsic motivation.? This definition of imitation considers these aspects of motivation and identification within language acquisition research to attempt to answer the question of what the nature of deep-structure imitation is, its effect on linguistic competence, and why it is not apparent in adult learning.

In recent years, SLA teaching methodologies for adult learning have focused more on meaning-driven tasks than on rote drills in order to reinforce the communicative language approach.? This approach employs explicit learning strategies based on conscious cognitive development that emphasize the four language skills—speaking, listening, reading and writing.? However, in order for an adult to reach native fluency of the target language, he needs a deeper relationship with the behaviors associated with language and its culture, requiring more affective approaches to overcome fossilization of his interlanguage in addition to cognitive understanding of grammar and pronunciation thus encompassing the many facets of acquisition.? Native fluency implies that a speaker has proficient command of syntax and semantics, and native sounding pronunciation of the target language to the degree that he cannot be distinguished from speakers whose first language is the target language.? Though Selinker (1978) defines fossilization, indicating an existing foreign accent and grammar “errors,” as permanent the imitation hypothesis assumes fossilization can be temporary.? The focus of this paper is to define and support a concept of imitation to develop an approach to overcome fossilization.?

Various Perspectives of Imitation.? “Example has more followers than reason.? We unconsciously imitate what pleases us, and approximate to the characters we most admire.”? (Christian Nestell Bovee)

Unconsciously and consciously we practice imitation, yet its nature has eluded psychological understanding.? Rather, imitation is limited in definition since it has been based on research focused on end result.? The prevailing views of imitation see it as a response to input (stimulus-response learning), a product of observation, or the process of observation and production.? Many others have attempted to define imitation but have not explained beyond its mechanics.? Research examples and discussions from the past century have displayed various psychological, sociological and linguistic perspectives giving insight to learning theory and human nature concerns.? But in the specific study of Second Language Acquisition (SLA), imitation has, for the most part, failed to be recognized as more than mimicry, and its definition has been limited to speech aspects denoted merely in the audio-lingual approach.? As far as the author’s research has found, this is as far as it has succeeded in linguistic theoretical research.? It facilitates pronunciation of phonetypes but reveals little acceleration in reaching native fluency.

An exception to prevailing views, however, Brown (1987) discriminates between “surface imitation” which stems from behaviorist principles and what children employ, deep structure imitation.? He suggests children learn the deep-structure of language by employing imitation in learning the semantics of language.? Though its description is largely undefined, the implications of it being the means which children learn their first language as opposed to how adults learn leads to the hypothesis contained herein which attempts the task of defining this imitation.

What deep-structure imitation is not, is what developmental psychology mostly describes.? Learning theories in developmental psychology seem most influential in establishing the common perspectives describing how imitation works.? Kymissis and Poulson (1990) explored the history of imitation in psychological research indicating its importance in the development of these theories.? Contributions they found significant elucidated “generalized imitation,” which is based on an operant-learning paradigm, underlined by concepts such as Thorndike’s connectionism and Pavlov’s classical conditioning, Hull’s monistic theory, Mowrer’s two-factor theory, and Skinner’s operant theory.? Generalized imitation demonstrates that input observed by the imitator leads to imitated acts including acts that are not reinforced by the model.? This indicates, in a behavior-analytic perspective, that imitation can be learned supporting the audio-lingual? approach but not necessarily native fluency.

Nelson (1981) believes that imitation should be associated with novel speech found in a gestalt, or expressive, style more apparent in children during play.? This aspect of language use certainly has important implications about imitation having a cognitive function and could potentially support deep-structure imitation.? But the gestalt style still limits evidence of imitation in SLA to an end result.? Gestalt style is applicable to children because of their very nature to play but has little significance for their nature to learn.? Yando, et. al.(1978) say imitation is evident in the performance of language, and that the accuracy of imitation, or in speech reproduction, is higher in adults than children.? Their perspective views various levels of development but relegates the role of imitation only in obvious reproduced acts.? Speidel (1989) also contends the role of imitation in speech production and notes articulation of speech becomes adult-like at age 5 or 6.? In linguistic study, Whitehurst and Vasta (1975) challenged learning theory by naming “selective” imitation as imitation’s role in linguistic competence.? They claimed language is learned through a three-step process of comprehension, selective imitation by which children use grammar and words novelly, and spontaneous production which occurs in the absence of an imitative component.? Such studies subjugate imitation to surface features of language.

Imitation in learning theory and language learning theory rely heavily on research of children—the experts at imitation.? But research has tended to objectify imitation as a component, or components of learning, rather than a mode of learning, or as a whole.? Relying on microstudies of components impose limits that stifle possibilities for advancement in SLA.? Other perspectives of imitation provide alternatives to contemporary psychology presenting more comprehensive concepts to lend to a development of imitation theory.?

Guillaume (1926) describes imitation in a comprehensive treatise about the phenomena in children.? Though his interpretation of imitation refers to an exact representation, or end result, he is more philosophical in his approach revealing further insight regarding identification factors.? A child’s representation may not be exact at a young age, yet his cerebral plasticity enables “perfectability” of acts.? On the other hand, an adult’s reproduction tends to initially be more exact, but his correction is limited due to habit formation, or according to SLA, fossilization.? A child’s perfectability determines his imitativeness by which the child follows an example from which he expands and defines an individual self.? Guillaume distinguishes imitation from mimicry and displays it as the protagonist in development.

In a handbook written for anthropologists who learn the languages of the cultures they study, Gudschinsky (1967) refers to imitation as mimicry but indicates its importance for understanding culture.? She encouraged mimicry as a means of facilitating language learning including non-verbal communication and other nuances of speech, which is essential for understanding certain aspects of foreign cultures.? Learning the foreign language enables the anthropologist to understand in the target language cultural concepts that could otherwise not be explained.? This anthropological perspective demonstrates associative learning motivated by a desire to understand the culture encouraging learning much like the way children learn.

Morgan (1896) distinguishes instinctive and voluntary acts of imitation, the former without motivated purpose, congenital and unconscious, and the latter with the guidance of intelligence.? He attempts to describe its nature by the incentives and tendencies that couple the action claiming that there is a factor of bias on the part of the imitator to get satisfaction out of the reproduction.? In intelligent imitation, reproduction could satisfy the imitator when the copy is improved.? Though his interpretation of imitation in the learning process is broad, the explanation that the imitator is biased about the satisfaction he wishes to attain creates an ambiguity about the motivation of imitation.? Deep-structure imitation, however, is driven by a more precise affective factor in children.

Finding support for deep-structure imitation seems an indomitable task amidst surveys of existing literature, however, Kvadsheim’s work (1992) lays a framework for social behavior that endows imitation’s intricacy.? Kvadsheim offers a holistic perspective of behavior as a concept for an imitation theory formalized in his Exemplar Choice Theory (ECT).? In acknowledging the complexity of learning, he created a framework for subprocesses of behavior indicating points at which one chooses an action.? People are in essence “intelligent imitators” choosing actions based on prior observations.? Though this analysis alludes to Morgan’s explanation, it is quite different in that there is no distinction between mechanisms of innate or voluntary tendencies.? Imitation is innate, yet is occurs by intelligent choice based on stored representations of previous acts.? Imitation in this perspective has all the implications for a “deep-structure” explanation in that Kvadsheim provides thorough descriptions of the behavioral processes leading to choice, which are affected by intuition and direct social learning.? While Kvadsheim does not term imitation, he presents ECT with suggestion for an alternative perspective.

In light of Kvadsheim’s insight, we can begin to speculate on the differences between adult’s and child’s learning, not in the fundaments defined in SLA theory (Bley-Vroman, R. 1988) but in the subprocesses of behavioral choice and how influences manipulate the choice process.? It seems linguists and psychologists agree children are more successful than adults in employing imitation to learn native fluency of languages but tend to overlook the cause of these differences.? Rather than try to define the processes of imitation, we must understand the root of its affect.? Imitation must not be seen as a language learning tool or a product of the learning process, but as a means of learning.?

Development of an Imitation Theory.

If we set out our explorations with classical issues in mind, much of our quantitative analyses, empirical evidences and concrete observations would be put aside for a more intuitive and descriptive treatise.? Though, philosophical considerations often lack decisive conclusions or proofs, and a demand for more practical illustrations inevitably increases.? This discussion aims at challenging the prevailing views of imitation and present an approach that for many would be a viable solution for native fluency of a second language.

Every year in New York City, thousands of people arrive from other parts of the world in pursuit of their dreams.? One woman, having been in New York for two weeks started working at an office as a receptionist.? On the phone, the caller slowly and carefully spelled her name:? “K-I-A-I”.? “K-I-E-I” was the Alabama native’s comprehension.? Because she misunderstood the A as an E does not preclude that this woman’s first language was not English, but it does suggest that because a Southern “A” is flatter sounding than a rounded Northern “A” what she thought she heard was “E”.? In similar respect, when one learns a foreign language, “perfect” pronunciation is not the indicator of native fluency, especially in a country with tens or hundreds of thousand regional accents.? Although developing pronunciation is an important factor in native fluency, it should not be singled out as an indication of imitation.? Imitation should be considered in order for learners to manipulate speech, hence assimilating to a desired dialect or style of pronunciation.? Blunt (1967) notes dialects as informing hearers of personality, or personal idiosyncrasy.? With command of speech, speakers would be able to emote character.? But the tendency of SLA study has been to relegate imitation of pronunciation to mimicry.? Mimicry indicates surface imitation and surface results in language learning.? An adult may be a perfect and talented mimic of accents and pronunciation but in conversation be an idiot.? A knowledge of vocabulary and grammar is necessary for him to converse, however, it is not a prescriptive knowledge wherein he is able to state the rules or provide dictionary definitions.? Rather, he must be familiar with the grammatical patterns in the language in order to recognize nuances and produce comprehensible statements.? (Grammar should not be referred to as a set of rules.? “Rules” seems to imply that someone or some organization created them for people to follow.? Grammatical patterns, however, develop from constant use, or by trial and practice.)

Assuming Universal Grammar and that certain aspects of grammar are innate and common among all languages, other aspects vary according to the manner in which each language evolved over time.? Speech incidents wove logical patterns according to the culture that produced them.? As Gudschinsky noted, certain aspects of culture cannot be explained without understanding the accompanying language, which suggests that the development of language and its grammatical patterns is intrinsic to the expression of those cultural values.? Grammar’s evolution, therefore, resolved issues concerning expression by transforming language under the guise of human thinking and perception while maintaining sensible and meaningful structures.?

Attention to grammar and pronunciation is the mark of Communicative Language Teaching whereas the approach of imitation attends to resorting to L1 learning methods.? Though these methods are largely undefined in this paper, the rudiments are portrayed in children’s lives.

In L1 acquisition, as a child’s vocabulary increases so does his logic and his cognitive processing.? From the initial state of the “language faculty” grammar “grows” as Chomsky (1980) expressed.? SLA theorists have tended to accept this rationalization—constituting the initial state is only in pre-pubescent children—as a basis for critical period hypotheses claiming that fossilization is inevitable for people learning a second language after a certain age.? Bongaerts (1999) demonstrates this point of view as arguable, supported by examples of people who attained native-like fluency of second languages.? The questions drawn by the discussion of the Critical Period Hypothesis have lead to contentions about language learning that continue to overlook aspects of the mind aside from intellect and basic affective factors (e.g., motivation).? The discussion here endeavors to illustrate that the growth of grammar in a child’s mind does not result from being taught the rules, nor is it necessarily his “cerebral plasticity,” indicating neurobiological factors.? Rather, language acquisition in children—in contrast against adults—occurs due to other aspects of the mind at an emotional level, namely by feeling and volition.? Assuming the definition of imitation that follows, children attend to language meaning according to their desire to learn perceive syntax as their competence advances with their understanding of meanings.? Essentially, deep-structure imitation is what allows grammar to grow.? With such reasoning, it is imperative for adult SLA study to model first language acquisition in children to practically understand how imitation works, not by the mechanics involved in learning but in consideration of other affective factors in children’s character.

Children may not actively comprehend grammar, but considering grammar as patterns associated with how words are used, children are able to perceive meaning and how to use these patterns whether or not they are cognitively ready to verbalize the “rules”.? Children’s language may not sound perfect, though this is the aspect Guillaume referred to as perfectability which he claimed to be a factor of cerebral plasticity.? Accuracy of pronunciation is less in children, yet their speech is shaped as their development progresses.? Opposite to children, adults tend to fossilize structures of language keeping them from reaching native fluency.? Unlike Selinker and Lamendella’s idea that second languages have permanent trace elements of the first language due to fossilization, the imitation hypothesis is concerned with perfectability in adults and aims to increase it, contending that grammar can grow in the mind of an adult.

SLA research must consider children’s motivation and the inception of their imitation.? Without understanding the root of children’s behavior and what influences their actions and desires, adult L2 learning would not advance beyond using communicative language learning methods.? With the considerable insight of children’s learning such in Guillaume (1926) and Piaget (1951), existing studies contribute valuable clues leading to develop a definition of imitation.? In consideration of these insights, a comparison between L1 and L2 learning determines what adult learning generally lacks.

According to SLA, the main discrepancy between L1 and adult L2 learning is defined by Selinker and Lamendella’s Interlanguage Hypothesis which formalizes differentiating the grammars of the native and target languages.? Before reaching native fluency of the L2, learners develop an interlanguage by approximating target language output based on prior language knowledge as a result L1 knowledge transferred to the interlanguage system.? In L1 learning, there is no confusion by another existing language system.? While the Interlanguage Hypothesis has been beneficial for Communicative Language Teaching, it provides no effective solutions for overcoming fossilization, which is an ignored, forgotten, and forfeited task that is seen more a conundrum than a problem to solve.? Because every adult learning a second language has an interlanguage, CLT methods focus on facilitating its function teaching learners cognitive strategies.? The approach of imitation, however, dismisses the grammatical influence the L1 has on learning the L2 with strategies to focus the learner less on rules and more on pragmatics.? Interlanguage is still influenced by the L1, but its structure ideally would reflect a more ambiguous system rather than one that could be predicted based on error analysis.? The goal of an imitation approach is for adults to cross the line from interlanguage to native fluency.?

Employing imitation does not ignore cognitive strategies or CLT methodology, but benefits from them in accelerated learning.? Skehan (1991) discusses individual differences in second language learning distinguishing particularly four factors of learning:? language aptitude, motivation, learner strategies and learner styles.? Of these individual differences, SLA theory has focused on strategies being a tangible aspect of learning that teachers are able to manipulate for the classroom.? Scarcella (1992) classified strategies into primary, which directly employ language use, and support, which includes affective strategies.? This classification implies cognitive theory as prevalent in a hierarchy of teaching methodology.? But in reconsidering imitation, affective factors should not be secondary to cognitive strategy.? Logistically, adults tend to prefer the part of the brain that engages cognitive processing, and practice in this regard uses cognitive strategies along with prior knowledge, or schemata, to which applying grammar rules seems more efficient in understanding.? This deductive reasoning is a preferred procedure in adult methods.? High aptitude influences such strategies effectively, however, native fluency usually remains unattained.

Clearly, cognitive strategy and aptitude is not a determining factor of attainability of native fluency.? Though aptitude may affect speed or effectiveness of learning, there is no supporting evidence that high language aptitude leads to native fluency.? The central thesis of imitation, however, concerns the manner in which adults use those strategies in order to attain fluency.?

Eventual attainment of native fluency in adult learning is debated around the critical period hypothesis.? The issues discussed in Birdsong (1999), Krashen, Scarcella and Long (1982) and numerous other texts regarding the differences of language acquisition between children and adults address clues but little solution for aiding adults in reaching desired native fluency of foreign languages.? The closest to solution, as yet documented, can be found in Bongaerts (1999) who refers to studies on adults whose fluency is native or near-native.?

A large part of the Critical Period argument considers biological factors differentiating L1 and adult L2 learning.? Since neuroscience has made advances concerning brain plasticity, the biological explanation of lack of acquisition in adults limits reasoning to consider a “language acquisition device,” or language module in the neocortex that may not be as accessible to adults as children.? Klein (1996) speculates this possibility after considering other apparent factors of differences among varied ages including motivation, perception, language environment and speed of acquisition.? However, none of these factors accounts absolutely for fossilization.? Additionally, Flynn’s (1996) parameter-setting model defies the LAD argument leaving little evidence for neurobiological factors to account for children’s and adults’ learning differences.? In theory imitation would make the critical period hypothesis obsolete for some adult learners provided they held to the tenets that discriminate such a theory from our current understanding of SLA.

Looking further at how adults and children learn, we find how affective factors influence children’s learning in ways andragogy has generally ignored.? Imitation considers such factors as motivation, intuitive thought and humility as important as, if not more than, cognitive strategies in language learning.? Krashen (1982) notes affective factors encourage children’s learning over a long period of time in relation to the time adults reach linguistic competence.? Krashen introduced the affective filter hypothesis while considering cognitive differences between child and adult.? Cognitive theory demonstrates that adults have the tools to learn language operation; accordingly, Krashen discusses how adults remain more limited in acquisition because of a “high affective filter.”? The motivation of one with a high filter might be instrumentally motivated rather than integratively and may carry prejudices against the language or culture being learned.? He cites Larsen and Smalley (1972) who suggest a learner lacks submission to new norms of the second language as his personality becomes established near the age of puberty.? Curran (1961) notes adults resist dependence on the new language as it threatens their previous linguistic security whereas children are more apt to learn by their dependence on their current language environment. While cognitively adults are able initially to learn a language faster than children, ultimate attainment of native fluency is almost exclusively children’s achievement.? The affective filter hypothesis accounts for the lack of attainability in adults.? Personality change and threatened linguistic security are relevant explanations for the affective filter hypothesis, however in defining deep-structure imitation, deeper issues expose the roots of human behavior that essentially define the nature of the affective filter.? In describing imitation, the hypothesis accounts for the affective differences but also questions what the underlying factor of the affect is, and it suggests how to minimize one’s affective filter.

Adult SLA theory and learning theory has generally treated the differences between children and adults as conditions of human behavior without considering how adults may benefit learning (or re-learning) from children’s actions.? Speidel (1990, chapter 11) suggests applying evidence from imitation studies in children to adult theory, but her work examines minutely the processes of imitation, not mannerism.? Other studies such as in Flynn (1996) and Klein (1996) find no compelling evidence to discriminate children’s and adults’ language learning indicating a need to shift SLA perspectives.? Hence, imitation studies should be applicable to adults and provide a prospect for adults to exploit children’s ability to imitate by learning how to learn using children’s cognitive and affective strategies.

Defining Imitation

Imitation has been given roles in learning theories, usually as a process or part of a process.? These views of imitation limit it to describe surface features of learning, observable in empirical studies of reproductions.? This hypothesis considers imitation as a mode of language acquisition, the means by which learning is established.? While “imitativeness” indicates observable qualities in learners’ speech and actions, the definition of imitation herein refers more to what Brown acknowledges as deep-structure imitation which is the manner children acquire language.? This imitation that manifests in children’s learning is what SLA theory should take into account when devising methodology.? While we perceive that imitation mechanically involves observation and reproduction, in language learning it is merely mimicry without certain affective factors.? How does the imitation children employ in language learning differ from other “types” of imitation?? People may intuitively imitate each other with an intention to be pleased, as suggested by Morgan, though usually unconsciously and in non-verbal communication.? Actors identify with characters in their act of imitation yet not necessarily intuitively, nor do they particularly learn language.? Adult language learners imitate pronunciation to the extent they perceive but generally do not attain fluency because they are limited by affective factors that prevent them from learning beyond their explicit cognitive ability.?

Imitation in language learning involves its mechanics of observation and production but not without the imitator’s identification with a model by which he affectively learns to perceive cultural values and language patterns.? We become who we are based on our cultural environment whether or not we are in agreement with that environment.? This identification is a basis for cognition in imitation. ?The product is apparent in our pronunciation and our pragmatic competence.1

Deep-structure imitation has three essential components:? identification, intuition and humility.? Further detail of these components indicates an interdependence in their function and suggests a means for learners to determinately imitate.? Though these components are evident in adult second language pronunciation in the research section of this paper, the aspect of deep-structure also implies imitation of language structure.

Identification.? A concept of identification is essential to understanding how second language speech relies on imitation in shaping language.? Without identification, imitation is mimicry.? With identification, imitation leads to a totality of relational understanding through acquisition of a culture’s language.? The culture in a sense acts as a point of reference by which relational ties are understood and established.? Identification has been explored in various psychological and sociological contexts and has numerous implications for studies in cognitive development (Piaget 1968), behavior and motivation (Bronfenbrenner 1958).? In SLA theory, however, it has been largely overlooked.? Schumann’s (1976) acculturation theory regards allowing cultural values to influence learning bearing implications for enhancing language acquisition, but it is important to make a distinction between concepts of identification to clarify imitation.? Winch and Gordon summarize some perspectives of identification and, maintaining a comprehensive view, conclude a definition for their study as alluding to the influence of a person or group on an individual.? Their perspective confers to some degree with factors of Schumann’s (1976) theory.? However, a comparison between Acculturation Theory and Imitation Theory reveals discrepancies between being influenced by culture and seeing the influence objectively through identification.?

Schumann (1976) clarified in his Acculturation Theory how social distance influences language learning.? He defines three levels language learners may respond to the target language group’s culture (or “target culture”).? Preservation indicates a maintenance of home culture as much as possible.? Acculturation is an adaptation to a lifestyle of the target culture somewhat maintaining home culture and values in certain social situations.? Assimilation into the target culture leads one to give up his own lifestyle and values and adopt the target culture and, hence, most strongly impact language acquisition.? Between groups of L2 learners and target language speakers, factors leading to any of these levels include:? social dominance of one group over another, cohesiveness of a cultural group, enclosure, or degree of isolation of the L2 learners, cultural congruence between the two groups, attitude and length of residence.? Assimilation in this construct may encourage learner strategies, but it does not offer solution for native fluency.? Even in ideal situations where two groups are culturally congruent and have strong relational ties (e.g., Norwegians living in Denmark) adults still fossilize.? A high affective filter in an individual in a foreign environment justifies preservation and acculturation, but it is also present when he assimilates into target culture yet fossilizes in target language use.? Fossilization despite assimilation may indicate imitation at a surface level—in mannerisms, in non-verbal language and some aspects of pronunciation and grammar use that are perceivable—but it also indicates a lack of deep-structure imitation.

In order for assimilation to be effective for reaching native fluency, identification must be more deeply involved in the life and attitudes of the language learner.? This does not automatically preclude that the language learner is influenced to adopt the target culture’s values or lifestyle, but identification is a means to understand culture by discerning the cultural influences.? In identifying, the adult learner relates his experience or perspective of the world to the target culture environment.? Imitation involves identifying with cultural aspects concerning behavior, mentality and emotions.?

Cultural assimilation begins to affect fluency when the learner upholds identification at a behavioral level.? When a new culture influences a learner’s behavioral choices, whether the protagonists are classmates, friends or even characters on television, his personality is challenged to discern his choices depending on the social situation.? A language learner with an extroverted personality may become introverted in a foreign environment.? He may fail to learn effectively because of his discomfort in identifying with the new culture.? Curran refers to a threatened linguistic security, but it seems that one’s security is based more on his personal identification of his own character; his linguistic security is present because he identifies his own character with his native culture.? In making a distinction between personality and character, however, an existing threat may be minimized.? Identification with another culture does not mean changing one’s character or losing one’s self.? Malerstein and Ahern (1982) distinguish personality from character, which is “[one’s] most basic and abiding intrapsychic organization as a social being:? his primary concerns and his system for processing data involving person relationships.” (p. 24)? Character refers to one’s disposition or motives whereas personality precludes actions that may vary depending on circumstances.? In making language choices, understanding the inner workings of a culture is necessary not only for communicating on all levels but also for relating to others socially.?

At a developmental level, identification provides children with schemata from which to choose actions.? When a child’s choice of actions are common to a culture he internalizes its values and standards, subsequently establishing a mentality particular to that culture.? For example, Danish culture carries a mentality that evokes a strength derived from intelligence; hence, education is encouraged for all ages, and children grow up learning to rationalize.? Understanding this thinking would be important for a foreigner to identify with Danish culture lest he be shocked to see its outcome.? Consider this scenario:? A child’s parents were never legally married.? Despite his parents’ separation in his early school years, they maintained communication and an acquaintance because they rationalized that any sign of resentment toward each other would negatively affect him.? The child, now a teenager, has learned that single parenthood in Denmark is an acceptable and effective practice.? For a foreigner in Denmark, perhaps a Korean, this mentality may be shock.? He may not accept single parenthood in his own life, but identification with the culture would lead to his understanding of it, reducing shock to an awareness.? His identification does not lead to internalization.? In this respect, a mental state may determine how one identifies with certain groups, but it does not establish a person’s identity (Wilshire).? A study by Ellemers, et. al. (1988) showing the dynamics of social strata and how their permeability influences social mobility indicates that people are likely to identify with or against groups for security and self-esteem.? Variability and mobility within a culture manifested into many social groups, including people who do not “belong” to any particular group, suggests identification with culture may exclude adoption of the culture’s politics, religion and trends but promotes intercultural mobility.

Effective identification in language learning leading to native fluency occurs at an emotional level.? Non-native fluency allows one to communicate, but not always with the empathy he would perceive in the security of his native language.? The key to identification is best explained by Wilshire (1994); because all people are similar each person’s identity includes how he identifies with others and their experiences.? Identity is not dependent on culture but on how one relates to others.? With relatability the language learner need not fear losing his identity in becoming native in second language speech.? Based on Wilshire’s suggestion that the essential condition for being a person is in his past, the learner should see identification much like empathy resulting from understanding his own situations then relating them to others.? Goleman (1995) presents strategies, including empathy, that employ emotional intelligence (EQ) to enhance relationships with others and to deepen one’s understanding of social interactions.2? EQ strategies benefit behavioral choices and would enhance one’s emotional identification with a culture, hence, in learning to communicate effectively and acquiring language.

How an adult can learn to emotionally identify with and reach native fluency of the target language essentially requires a degree of dependence on his relationships.? Finding such a situation could be problematic since adults are autonomous by nature, but the open-minded individual can find an appropriate environment and attain acquisition.? Though the adult is set apart from children by his autonomy, as a second language learner he must imitate children in their imitation and adopt their dependence.? Children’s dependence on their caretakers is the basis for identification defined by Sears, et.?al. (1965) and is described as follows:

“Dependency, in identification theory, is the principal source of reinforcement of the imitative behavior that leads to adult role adoption.? When the maturing but still dependent child suffers gradual withdrawal of parental nurturance and love, he is stimulated to role practice by his need to regain control of the parental resources, especially the expression of love.? In the absence of dependency motivation, identification would not develop; with unusually high dependency, other things being equal, identification should develop normally.” (p. 27)

Through emotional attachment to their caretakers children build first language security and personality.? They are motivated by their dependence on them as they build knowledge and become familiar with language patterns.? Some with high individual ability may identify oneself outside pre-existing social constructs (Ellemers et.?al., 1988) and disregard dependence as a necessary condition for native fluency attainment, but others will see the necessity and embrace dependence in identifying with language.? A study elaborated in Curran (1961) evidences dependency facilitating language acquisition; subjects were encouraged to learn by factors of unconscious motivation, and some expressed improvements in personal day-to-day social incidents.? Personality growth, as Maslow stressed, is vitally influenced by unconscious motivation.? For the language learner a different cultural environment exposes a challenge that, without identifying with it emotionally, could restrict growth not only in language acquisition but also in making behavioral choices, personality and EQ.?

Intuition.? The role of intuition in imitation of language structure relies on acceptability judgments (Sorace, 1996) for determining its significance.? Intuitive expertise, or implicit learning, conditions pragmatic competence in language learning; it is what distinguishes declarative knowledge from procedural and controlled processing from automatic.? Learning strategies in cognitive theory (O’Malley and Chamot, 1990) are concerned with issues in adult learning that may be subsumed by developments regarding intuition. Claxton (1998) elucidates its function of providing plausibility to knowledge without articulated reasoning contrasting adults’ tendency to learn systematically.? He considers confusion to be means for use of intuition, which seems to suggest how adults should approach acquisition of structure, or grammatical patterns: “Given a complex practical task to perform, expertise develops well in advance of the ability to articulate, explain or even consciously detect the patterns of information…” (Claxton, p. 217)

Macaulay (1980) observed similar intuitive characteristics in children’s language use:

Perhaps the most amazing aspect of children’s language development is that at all stages it forms a coherent system, even when it is very different from the adult language.? In fact, it is curious that the child is apparently satisfied with a rough approximation to adult language and makes little attempt to perfect any single utterance before moving on to more complex tasks.? One might have expected the child to practice a few key utterances until they were reasonable good imitations of adult speech, but this does not happen.? It is fairly obvious why not.? If children concentrated on only a few utterances they would be limited in their ability to communicate… (p.2)

Intuitive thought, such as explained by Piaget (1951) resembles “spontaneous” speech attributed in children’s language seen in various stages of their cognitive development.? In adults this kind of thinking should operate in lieu of language transfer, a process explained by Selinker and Lamendella (1978) as causing fossilization of one’s interlanguage, which supports S. Flynn’s (1996) perspective that Universal Grammar remains available to second language learners.? Imitation gives intuition the role of exposing the parameters, or patterns, that define a language.

Children’s intuition does not operate in language acquisition without the affective factors associated with identification.? A recent report (V. Neufeld, 1999) indicated that when answering questions, adults tend to use critical thinking more by using the dorsal-lateral prefrontal cortex, and creative thinking in children who are more apt to use the amygdala, the emotional center.? Goleman (1995) cited indications that the strength of a memory relates to emotional imprint on the amygdala.? It seems then, children are able to recall linguistic patterns best at a time when they identify with their environment, or caretakers, thus recalling emotional memory in connection with those patterns.? The tendency for adults to use critical thinking explains the evolution of Communicative Language Teaching in SLA theory.? However, as studies in EQ expose, not all situations elicit “adult” thinking.? Answering questions, regarded in SLA as a communicative skill is as much critical thinking, or rationalization, learners should practice.? Otherwise, SLA should develop emotional thinking’s relationship with implicit learning.? Neurobiologists have found that neural networks link sensory stimuli in variant paths between the thalamus, amygdala and cortex (J. LeDoux, 1994) which seems to indicate that the neural path of an observation stimulus varies according to emotional, or affective, impact.? Biological evidence of affective discrimination (Kunst-Wilson, 1980) and emotional memory (J. LeDoux) strengthens implications for the validity of intuition in language acquisition.?

Humility.? Krashen’s affective filter hypothesis addresses differences in L1 and L2 acquisition attributing affective variables to what makes a child a “superior acquirer.”? The variables Krashen lists, self-confidence and instrumental or integrative motivation, clearly affect language acquisition, but these variables are incompatible with evidence of native fluency.? The affective filter during adulthood, claimed to be strengthened at the age of puberty, is relatively higher or lower but never null.? A high affective filter results in fossilization at a lower point on one’s second language proficiency.? A lower filter results in greater proficiency, but adult L2 proficiency is still expected at best within one’s interlanguage; target language is rarely, if ever, reached.? Imitation has a more radical approach in defining “openness” to learning, not depending on the degree of input “into” the language faculty but on the behavior chosen by the learner.

For the affective filter to least hinder acquisition, adults must employ humility.? Generally not referenced in scientific texts, humility is a largely misunderstood aspect of character that lies at the heart of children’s learning with roots in cognition.? Pelling (1694) regards humility as a virtue related to self-control, functioning in the mind by promulgating “a slender opinion of man’s own self.” (p. 5)? Humility is commonly thought of as weakness, an aspect of denigration, or belittled spirit.? But the Greek translation of the word, which biblical-use made known, does not indicate negative connotations.? Fontenot and Jones (1999) state that humility is not passiveness or cowardice, nor does it imply blindly following another, but they indicate that it does accompany confidence, willingness to learn, ability to acknowledge one’s own problems and weaknesses without being degrading.?

Humility is not undervalued in all scholarly texts.? Goleman (1995) does not use the word, but his description of how one grows in emotional intelligence are definite marks of humbling oneself such as in order to empathize or to understand another’s point of view.? Maslow (1970) referred to humility upholding the value of character learning as having the most importance influence on shaping a person by experience.? He stated, “the influence of some tragic experience would be to change him from an immature person to a more mature adult, wiser, more tolerant, more humble, better able to solve any of the problems of adult life” (Maslow, p. 214).? Maslow’s emphasis on the word “any” suggests that in all situations, including language learning, the wiser and more humble character is a better problem solver.? In the problem of crossing the line from interlanguage to native fluency, tragic experience need not influence the learner to humble circumstances, though choosing to be humble and imitate as children do will effectively lead an adult to native fluency.? Children are by nature in humble circumstances, needing to depend on their caretakers, knowing little and assuming nothing.? In their imitation they become adept at perceiving more complex grammatical patterns as their cognition develops.?

Other terms were considered in defining the humility component of imitation.? Guiora (1991) termed “ego permeability” as an affective variable of “rigidity-flexibility” of one’s language ego, which is what he named as what determines his pronunciation.? The problem with this and other concepts of affective variables is that they are not constant values that learners can manipulate.? Learners do not have much choice in how these variables affect attaining fluency.? An integratively-motivated learner learns, or “accepts input” until his social needs are met, and an instrumentally-motivated learner learns until his communicative needs are met (Krashen, 1982) even if he desires native fluency.? Humility is a condition of which the learner is in full command.? With it, the learner demolishes the cultural boundaries built by pronunciation because he does not consider his native identity more important than another identity; nor does he allow failure or looking bad to keep him from trying the new pronunciation.

Unfortunately, as experience tells, humility is a challenge that grows human character sometimes more than humans desire.? Whether one is humbled by external force or humbles himself by choice, the result is abasement.? Fortunately, the beauty of humility is the direction that is left for one to go.? An integratively-motivated learner will realize that once his social needs are met, he still has much to learn.? His curiosity for more knowledge makes him intrinsically-motivated (Murray, 1964).? Murray develops a concept of intrinsic motivation as a motivation that is intrinsically rewarding contrasting extrinsic motivation where one performs in order to receive a reward.? In view of explaining motivations behind imitation which underlie the three factors leading to effective imitation, the following assumptions are made:? Extrinsic motivation tends to have tangible goals, or has goals that can be achieved whereas intrinsic motivation is driven by goals that cannot be reached; the motives are not clear.? Gaining certain knowledge might be considered an extrinsic motivation because knowledge such as facts can be quantified.? Gaining wisdom, on the other hand, is intrinsic.? It is unquantifiable.? Similarly, humility is a motivation driven by a desire to be lifted, to go from low to higher yet the height is indeterminate.? This intrinsic motivation is the basis for the processes of deep-structure imitation that begin with humility and lead to other intrinsic motivations.? These motivations are coupled with identification, intuition and the mechanics of imitation including observation and production.

The dynamics of imitation, represented in the interdependence between identification, intuition and humility, is hypothesized as the means for attaining native fluency—pronunciation and pragmatic competence.? Some theorists (O’Malley and Chamot, 1990) consider second language acquisition to be a complex cognitive skill which seems to imply something relating to computation.? Focusing on thought, or cognition, as the means to build language skill limits language use to purely rational constructions.? To the learner the second language becomes a sort of mathematics of culture, and every sentence produced becomes an equation that requires calculating according to grammatical rules.? Affective function becomes an addendum to such a concept rather than a major proponent.? In contrast, in his language ego paradigm, Guiora (1991) attributes linguistic competence, or internal representation of language, with cognitive strategies and pronunciation, or external representation, with affective.? But he questions how cognitive and affective strategies work together or against each other.? Imitation binds these types of strategies:? identification is affective; intuition is cognitive; humility employs both.

The conditions in which children learn affords them opportunities to learn things adults miss.? Neurological activity in children from intuitive thought and creativity maximizes the amount of input, and their humility maximizes input’s affect. It does not allow them to give in to fear when learning.? Fear, or anxiety, while sometimes helpful for cognitive learning, negatively affects imitation.? The environment becomes less important for learning as responsibility and critical thinking floods the adult mind.? Adults’ independence and preoccupation with their own needs leaves little room for identifying dependence and creative liberty.? These differences between child and adult demonstrate manner of learning which is exemplified in a dichotomy of language acquisition.? Figure?1 illustrates how different factors influence two ways of learning.

Research

Bongaerts (1999) identifies three factors contributing to the success of adult L2 learners’ native-like fluency:? “high motivation, continued access to massive L2 input, and intensive training in the perception and production of L2 speech sounds.” (p. 155)? Because the imitation hypothesis relies on children’s imitation as an example, it assumes the third factor, training in perception and production, though helpful, is not imperative for native fluency.? High motivation as a factor is not clearly defined by Bongaerts, however one can assume it is not exclusively integrative or instrumental by nature.? Attitudinal aspects of identification in imitation by similar regard carries implications for motivation, though motivation is not deemed “high” in influence; rather intrinsic motivation underlying imitation satisfies criteria defined by Maslow which concerns need-gratification in conscious and unconscious motivation.3? Bongaerts’s third factor, access to L2 input, is the factor that can assertively be identified as a necessary factor in language acquisition since it parallels first language acquisition.

From another perspective of native fluency, Guiora (1990, 1991) presents the conflict one’s language ego resulting not in one’s incompetence of semantics and syntax but in non-native pronunciation.? His take on pronunciation is strongly suggestive of its affect in culturally sensitive environments:

…pronunciation remains an effective barrier, or if you wish, a powerful marker, separating natives from non-natives, identifying members of the linguistic community by an instant, readily available and unavoidable test.? Native pronunciation is a near-perfect litmus test of membership in this vital ring of identity.? Native pronunciation becomes the hallmark, or the marker, of group language identity. (Guiora, 1990, p. 16)

Pronunciation, however, is an aspect of language that tells a listener more than one’s cultural identity.? From an adult’s speech, much can be speculated about his motivation, emotional involvement, and learning style depending on his background, how much time he spent focused on learning language, who influenced his learning and how.? The concern ultimately is not native pronunciation, but on how a learner is affected by his linguistic environment.?

In contrast to Bongaerts’s finding, this hypothesis suggests deep-structure imitation by identification, intuition and humility sufficiently provides learners with the tools for all aspects acquisition.? The study constructed to support the hypothesis suggests possibilities for adult deep-structure imitation.

Procedures.? Given the scarcity of research examples concerning imitation in language learning, changing speculation into confirmation of the three presented components presented challenges in methodology within a restricted time period.? Neufeld’s report (1978) on adult acquisition of articulatory and prosodic features of language demonstrates adult ability to acquire sounds of foreign languages to native proficiency.? The goal of redefining imitation, however, needed to consider it beyond mimetic reproduction and question more longitudinally how second languages are acquired.? The following study was conducted to examine the affects of imitation, such as defined in this hypothesis.

The study required a longitudinal analysis of language learners’ background indicating, to borrow the term from Guiora, ego permeability.? Three subjects were chosen with similar backgrounds.? All three were Korean, female in an age range of 25 to 35, students in graduate programs of universities in New York City, and all began speaking English after age 20.? After a reading and recording of a two minute contemporary monologue as a reference of speech production at the first week, they were presented with observation and pronunciation strategies.? For four weeks they met with the researcher who provided help with pronunciation then assigned a task requiring their attention along with their day to day activities, though not necessarily all-day long.? Assignments were to watch people’s actions and expressions, simultaneously listen and watch native speakers (a task that could be accomplished in their classrooms), and emulate speech and action immediately following observation.? By focusing on sight, sound and speech, subjects were encouraged to increase auditory and visual perception while learning to make conscious observations.? Enhancing perception is supported by Bartley (1958) who, based on studies on adults, indicates that perception can be learned.? Subjects were not encouraged to focus on pronunciation, though exercises from Edith Skinner’s Speak with Distinction were provided to facilitate articulation difficulties.? Other speech enhancement strategies were suggested such as listening to one’s self in a recording.? During the next two months subjects, they were encouraged to continue observing speech in a chosen model, a close friend or acquaintance, preferably someone they trusted though not necessarily a native English speaker.? At the end of three months, provided their attention was not diverted from the practice of observing speech, subjects were to record a reading of the same monologue read the first week.? For the final reading, subjects were to be directed in focusing not on their own speech but on the manner in which the person they observed spoke.? By attending to memory of their model’s pronunciation, emotional memory and intuition would affect speech.? Recordings from the first and last meetings were to be compared.

Though syntax in speech was a consideration for testing fluency, other factors were deemed more significant in accordance with the hypothesized definition of imitation.? Since subjects already had attained an advanced proficiency in speech and grammar, improvement of pronunciation was ascertained to indicate imitation.? Speech was analyzed from a reading of a contemporary prosaic monologue from the play “The Big Funk,” by John Patrick Shanley (Temchin, ed.).? This monologue was chosen for its relatability to the subjects in age and scene location and for language choice.? Reading proficiency was also considered yet disregarded; since the nature of monologues supports character identification and reflects actual spontaneous speech, results of readings were based on pronunciation and dialectal presentation of the material.? Machlin (1975) discusses the significance of speech and dialects for the theatre presentation in conveying character.? Through subjects’ speech, reflection of identification of their own character with the monologue was expected in the reading.? The goal of the study was to see the affect of the subjects deliberate imitation of native speakers of English.

One of the criteria for successful imitation regards attitude displayed by subjects’ eagerness to learn despite time constraints.? Two of the three subjects did not persevere through three months.? One subject consistently excused herself for not keeping up with assignments.? Another would follow weekly assignments for one or two days, then give up.? The third subject, called Sue, followed through with making conscious visual and auditory observations.? In the first few weeks she was helped with pronouncing connecting consonant sounds of consecutive words and consonant combinations as in the word “cysts.”? She also kept a close relationship with a female friend who she was encouraged to imitate.?

Results.? All three subjects read the monologue the first time with considerable pronunciation difficulty.? Within the first three weeks, Sue noticed herself imitating her professor’s speech as a result of careful visual and auditory observation during class.? She was eager to improve her fluency and requested writing suggestions and help with grammar in essays assigned by her professors.? Near the end of her school’s semester, in preparation for an oral presentation, Sue targeted pronunciation difficulties by listening to her own speech recording.?

At the second reading, Sue attempted to pinpoint articulation difficulties such as with the phoneme [w] in “would,” a word that appears in the monologue 11 times.? After some frustration with trying to mimic the researcher’s pronunciation, she was encouraged to rely on her model.? Halfway through the monologue, Sue clearly began to distract attention from her pronunciation and remember her model.? Her facial expression and aural tone shifted, and she began to natively articulate the [w] sounds.? The phoneme [j] was also improved in “tragedy,” changed from [tr?? di] to [tr?? di].? Between words in a phrase, she appropriately placed glottal stops, a manner of articulation frequently used in her native language and which was excessive in her previous reading.

Discussion.? Sue’s change in pronunciation clearly was not a result of intense practice and perception.? Her model, who was a trusted friend, became a reference of identification that distracted attention from explicitly producing the “correct” sounds.? Other aspects of her speech improved over the three months including articulation of consonant and vowel sounds, intonation and pitch.? It was difficult after three months to discern improvement in expression and use of syntax.? A noticeable characteristic in writing was ease and correctness in writing discourse that was personal compared to improper use of prepositions and verb tenses in school assignments.? Writing samples from the three month research period should be compared to samples from a previous year and from future samples, perhaps in the coming year, provided Sue continues to use the strategies from this study.

Out of the three original subjects, all experienced personal incidents during the first four weeks of meeting with the researcher.? These situations exposed their understanding of emotional intelligence (as defined by Goleman, 1995).? The two subjects that did not continue with the study did not resolve their conflicts by their own devices, but Sue exhibited mature sensitivity to her conflict of poor communication between herself and her friend (her model, incidently), learning about her own character then proceeding to act responsibly by amicably confronting her friend.? Her responsible reaction displayed the humble attitude expected of an effective imitator.? The other two incidents similarly concerned conflicts between the subject and an acquaintance.? The lack of resolve indicates why the other two subjects were not effective imitators.? All of these incidents were coincidental.

Second study examination.? A second study was intended to examine a relationship between identification and fluency to determine a correlation with certain motivational factors..? Much insight in defining imitation was drawn from questionnaires administered to bilinguals living in New York.? One concern addressed in the questions was how one identified with the culture of the language learned.? Learning situations and learners’ identification with the target language culture reveal that native fluency is not dependent on high motivation, but how one is motivated.? The last question targeted desire to identify with another culture that is not one’s own in order to determine type of motivation.? Though responses to this question varied, any “yes” answer indicated an integrative motivation, and further explanation showed more important aspects of motivation such as intrinsic or instrumental.? The goal of the questionnaire was to present a more longitudinally-based perspective on language learning in order to make assumptions that could potentially lead to a solid theoretical framework for deep-structure imitation.

Tables 1 and 2 summarize answers to questionnaires administered to bilinguals who learned English as a second language.? Note particularly two bilinguals who learned English from age 10 and 11 (Table 1).? Although both learned as they integrated into American culture, Dariusz, who prefers learning language by studying and taking classes, still maintains a strong Polish accent although he feels he belongs to American culture.? His main influence for learning was a classroom setting.? Farshad on the other hand speaks English natively with an American accent and prefers learning by finding every opportunity to speak and listen even if he looks bad.? His learning preference and influences indicate that as he has learned English, he has been an effective imitator.

Other comparisons suggest the means by which bilinguals learn relative to the three factor definition of imitation.? Since all young children are considered effective imitators, Table?2 shows children who started learning English by age 6 as having fluency or native fluency in English.? Ted and Takashi who did not claim native fluency also did not claim native fluency in their first languages.? Ted’s indication of an active learning preference reflects strong identification to both first and second language cultures, though Takashi who prefers more passive learning does not identify as belonging to either culture.? If both Ted and Takashi were introduced to a third language, it can be assumed that Ted would be more likely to use imitation in learning it.

Of subjects who started learning English after age 10 (Table 1), fewer respondents claimed native fluency in English as expected.? In comparison of two bilinguals with similar backgrounds, both Wei who is natively-fluent and Yoshi who is a conversational English speaker are intrinsically motivated, are active learners and identify well with target language culture.? But differing competencies in the target language leads to a consideration of strategies applied in Yoshi’s learning.? Although he had models from which to imitate, he may not have learned to speak intuitively and tried explicitly, as Sue had tried initially during her second monologue reading, to pronounce and speak.

Conclusion.

This concept of imitation began as a reaction to some of SLA study’s perspective on Chomsky’s work (Ellis, 1994).? The notion of a language acquisition device has been theorized as being the part of the brain that allows children to acquire language by using UG.? It has also been assumed that, because the language faculty operates in this manner for children but not adults, certain cognitive strategies are necessary in order to turn declarative knowledge into procedural knowledge.? Chomsky said, “Language serves as an instrument for free expression of thought, unbounded in scope, uncontrolled by stimulus conditions though appropriate to situations, available for use in whatever contingencies our thought processes can comprehend.” (1980, p. 222)? For a statement from a man who developed Universal Grammar concepts, it seems quite contrary to SLA’s notion.?

Research has tended to veer away from the original intentions of thinkers who verbally promulgate their ideas.? Notions of Chomsky’s linguistic principles have gotten lost in the SLA discussion on Universal Grammar.? Chomsky himself (personal communication) claims little expertise in SLA, so it seems inappropriate to exact only a piece of a concept that is only fully understandable by thorough perusal of one’s works.

By redefining imitation, it is the author’s intention to change the spotlight on detail to a floodlight on a bigger picture in light of existing insights from various perspectives.? Many studies (including? Bongaerts, 1999; Flynn, 1996; Krashen, 1982) raise provocative issues and elucidate strong arguments, yet few issues are resolved because of inadequate examples.? By developing an approach of imitation, practical strategies will encourage more natively-fluent speech, as seen in Sue’s example, and more dynamic research subjects.? In a larger SLA schema an imitation approach would aim at teaching adults to relearn how to learn.? But how can education incorporate such radical concepts as identification and humility to encourage the use imitation strategies?? These aspects of imitation may least likely have supporters, but even for adults who are resistant to change, the prospects for an imitation approach are implicative of effective language acquisition solutions as well as an example for employing emotional intelligence strategies to learning in general.? The Collaborative to Advance Social and Emotional Learning (CASEL), based at the University of Illinois in Chicago, researches emotional learning particularly in children yet collaborates with Daniel Goleman whose works have focused on EQ in adults (personal communication).? With advances in the area of social and emotional learning, the prospects for developing imitation strategies are boundless.

Currently, few approaches exemplify teaching methodology that would support imitation.? One proponent is Krashen and Terrell’s Natural Approach (1983) based on the notion of fundamentally parallel L1 and L2 acquisition condoning learning situations for adults that is similar to children’s environment.? But even this approach cannot be effective without the students’ understanding of what imitation is on a deep level.? The practicality of imitation, as Sue demonstrated, allows learners to gain a fundamental knowledge, yet a thorough understanding could not be attained without experiencing the end result.? A way to facilitate an understanding would be through theatre.? Wilshire philosophizes theatre as a means for people to learn about character and to empathize with people one would normally not associate with.? The goal of using these methods would be to present lifelike examples which, with their emotional influences, can activate neurological plasticity as in children’s learning and encourage use of intuition.

In addition to practical strategies that employ imitation, further research should consider Kvadsheim’s ECT model in order to outline the subprocesses of behavioral choice and imitation and provide a solid framework for devising language learning strategies.? Discussing the details of this illustration is beyond the scope of this work, however the concept of ECT is important for exposing the differences between the adult’s and child’s imitative behavior so that, by determining how subprocesses operate in a language situation, imitation can be taught.

Since nature of language will continue to be questioned, it is fruitless to continue examining our current understanding of learning without seeing the whole of all the parts.? Redefining imitation is an attempt to look at the whole without ignoring the details that accompany its full picture.? Until we fully understand intuition, intrinsic motivation, and emotional intelligence, SLA can innovate its current theories to seek more effective language acquisition strategies rather than rely on communicative strategies that fail to bring learners to their desired goal of native fluency.

Footnotes

1 Chomsky defines pragmatic competence as what indicates ability to use language with its grammatical form and its function in order to effectively communicate.

2 Building EQ is an issue currently being investigated by psychologists and education professionals and has strong implications for SLA.? Current developments regarding EQ is available on the Web at https://www.casel.org/.

3 Maslow’s propositions for sound motivational theory and his formulation of motivation is elaborated in chapters three and four of Motivation and Personality.

?

Figure 1.? Dichotomy of language acquisition indicating differences between two approaches.

Table 1.

Notes.

1.??? HoYoon rarely speaks her first language and sometimes feel uncomfortable speaking it.

2.??? Language competencies:? A = Few words; B = Conversational; C = Fluent; D?= Natively fluent.

3.??? Who was most influential in subjects’ English language learning:? A = Family; B = School/Class; C = Friends; D = Culture/People who speak the language; E?=?Other.

4.??? How well subjects identified with language/culture:? A = I belong to this culture; B = I think I can fit in well/People might think I’m from this culture; C = I would like to identify with this culture, but I feel uncomfortable; D = I don’t care about identifying with this culture; E = I don’t know.

5.??? How subjects prefer learning language:? A = By finding every opportunity to speak and listen even if I look bad; B = By observing and asking people questions; C = By studying and taking classes; D = Just taking it as it comes; E = Don’t know.

6.??? Answers considered intrinsic motivation:? relatability, personal growth, learning desire or curiosity, eagerness, gaining?wisdom.

Bilingual Questionnaire

Name?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Telephone (optional)???????????????????????????

Country of origin??????????????????????????????????????????????????????

1)???? What is your first language?? Do you speak it natively?

2)???? What is your second language? At what age did you start speaking this language?

3)???? Do you feel comfortable speaking either of these languages at any time? First language???????????????????????????????????????????????????? Second language?

4)???? How well do you speak your first language?? ???????? Your second language?

a)???? Few words???????????????????????????????????????????????????? a)?? Few words

b)???? Conversational?????????????????????????????????????????????? b)?? Conversational

c)????? Fluent??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? c)?? Fluent

d)???? Natively-fluent?????????????????????????????????????????????? d)?? Natively-fluent

5)???? Who or what influenced your second language learning most?

a)???? family

b)???? school/class

c)????? friends

d)???? people who speak the language/culture

e)???? other______________________________________________________________________

6)???? Choose the statement that best fits your identification with a culture of your native language.

a)???? I belong to this culture.

b)???? I think I can fit in well/people might think I’m from this culture.

c)????? I would like to identify with this culture, but I feel uncomfortable.

d)???? I don’t care about identifying with this culture.

e)???? I don’t know.

7)???? Choose the statement that best fits your identification with a culture of your second language.

a)???? I belong to this culture.

b)???? I might fit in well/people might think I’m from this culture.

c)????? I would like to identify this culture, but I feel uncomfortable.

d)???? I don’t care about identifying with this culture.

e)???? I don’t know.

8)???? How do you prefer learning a language?

a)???? By finding every opportunity to speak and listen even if I look bad.

b)???? By observing and asking people questions.

c)????? By studying and taking classes.

d)???? Just taking it as it comes.

e)???? Don’t know.

9)???? Do you desire to identify with a culture of a language that is not your native language?? Why or why not?

References

Bartley, S.H. (1958). Principles of Perception.? New York: Harper.

Birdsong, D. (Ed.). (1999).? Second Language Acquisition and the Critical Period Hypothesis.? Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.

Blakeslee, S. (1999, April 20).? Old brains can learn new language tricks, New York Times (from UMI – ProQuest Direct).

Bley-Vroman, R. (1988).? The fundamental character of foreign language learning.? In Rutherford, W. and M. Sharwood Smith (eds.).? Grammar and Second Language Teaching:? A Book of Readings.? Rowley, MA: Newbury House (as cited in R. Ellis 1994).

Blunt, Jerry (1967).? More Stage Dialects.? New York: Applause.

Bongaerts, Theo (1999).? Ultimate attainment in L2 pronunciation:? the case of very advanced late L2 learners.? In Birdsong, D. (ed.).? Second Language Acquisition and the Critical Period Hypothesis (pp. 133-159).? Mahwah, NJ:? Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1958).? Socialization and social class through time and space.? In E.E. Maccoby, T.M. Newcomb, & E.L. Hartley (eds.), Readings in Social Psychology (pp. 400-425).? New York: Holt. (as cited in R.F. Winch and M.T. Gordon, 1974).

Brown, H. Douglas (1987).? Principles of Language Learning and Teaching (2nd ed.).? Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Chomsky, Noam (1968).? Language and Mind.? New York: Harcourt Brace.

Chomsky, Noam (1980).? Rules and Representations.? New York: Columbia University Press.

Claxton, G. (1998, May).? Investigating human intuition:? knowing without knowing why.? Psychologist, 11, (5), 217-220.

Curran, C. (1961).? Counseling skills adapted to the learning of foreign language.? Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic, 25, 78-93.

Ellemers, Naomi; Van Knippenberg, Ad; de Vries, Nanne; Wilke, Henk (1988, December) Social identification and permeability of group boundaries.? European Journal of Social Psychology, 18 (6), 497-513.

Ellis, R. (1994).? The study of second language acquisition.? Oxford:? Oxford University Press.

Flynn, S. (1996).? A parameter-setting approach to second language acquisition.? In W.C. Ritchie & T.K. Bhatia (eds.), Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 121-158).? San Diego: Academic.

Fontenot, M. and Jones, T. (1999).? The prideful soul’s guide to humility.? Woburn, MA: Discipleship Publications International.

Goleman, D. (1995).? Emotional intelligence:? Why it can matter more than IQ.? New York: Bantam.

Gudschinsky, Sarah C. (1967). How to learn an unwritten language. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Guillaume, Paul (1926).? Imitation in children. Chicago: Chicago U. Press.

Guiora, A. (1990).? A psychological theory of second language pronunciation.? Toegepaste Taalwetenschap in Artikelen, 37, 15-23.

Guiora, A. (1991).? The two faces of language ego.? Toegepaste Taalwetenschap in Artikelen, 41, 5-14.

Klein, Wolfgang (1996).? Language acquisition at different ages.? In Magnusson, David (ed.)? The Lifespan Development of Individuals: Behavioral, Neurobiological, and Psychological Perspectives (pp. 244-64). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Krashen, S. (1982).? Accounting for child-adult differences in second language rate and attainment.? In S. Krashen, R.C. Scarcella, & M.H. Long (eds.), Child-adult differences in Second Language Acquisition (pp.?202-226).? Rowley, MA: Newbury.

Krashen, S. and Terrell, L. (1983).? The natural approach:? Language acquisition in the classroom.? Oxford: Pergamon.

Kunst-Wilson, W.R. and Zajonc, R.B. (1980). Affective discrimination of stimuli that cannot be recognized.? Science, 207, 557-558.

Kvadsheim, Reidar (1992).? The intelligent imitator:? Towards and exemplar theory of behavioral choice.? Amsterdam: North-Holland.

Kymissis & Poulson (1990).? The history of imitation in learning theory:? the language acquisition process.? Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 54, (2), 113-127.

LeDoux, Joseph E. (1994, June). Emotion, memory and the brain.? Scientific American, 50-57.

Machlin, Evangeline (1975).? Dialects for the stage (Manual). New York: Theatre Arts Books.

Malerstein, A.J. & Ahern M. (1982).? A Piagetian model of character structure.? New York: Human Sciences Press.

Maslow, A.H. (1970).? Motivation and personality (2nd ed.).? New York: Harper & Row.

Macaulay, Ronald (1980).? Generally speaking:? How children learn language.? Rowley MA: Newbury House.

Morgan, C.L. (1896). Habit and instinct.? London: Arnold.

Murray, E.J. (1964). Motivation and emotion.? Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Nelson, K. (1981). Individual differences in language development.? Developmental Psychology, 17, 170-187.

Neufeld, G. (1978).? On the acquisition of prosodic and articulatory features in adult language learning.? Canadian Modern Language Review, 34, 163-75.

Neufeld, V. (Executive Producer). (1999, March 8).? Teens:? What makes them tick.? New York: American Broadcasting Companies.

O’Malley, J.M. & Chamot, A.U. (1990).? Learning strategies in second language acquisition.? New York: Cambridge U. Press.

Pelling, E. (1694).? A practical discourse upon humility:? The nature, reasonableness and usefulness with ways of expressing and increasing it.? London: printed for William Crooke.

Piaget, J. (1951).? Play, dreams and imitation in childhood.? New York: Norton.

Scarcella, R. (1992).? The tapestry of language learning:? The individual in the communicative classroom.? Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

Schumann, J.H. (1976).? Social distance as a factor in Second Language Acquisition.? Language Learning 26, 135-143.

Sears, R.R., Rau, L. and Alpert, R. (1965).? Identification and child rearing.? Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Selinker, L. & Lamendella, J. (1978).? Two perspectives on fossilization in interlanguage learning.? Interlanguage Studies Bulletin, 3, 143-191.

Skehan, P. (1991) Individual differences in second language learning.? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 275-98.

Skinner, E. (1990).? Speak with distinction.? New York: Applause.

Sorace, A. (1996).? The use of acceptability judgments in second language acquisition research.? In W.C. Ritchie & T.K. Bhatia (eds.), Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 121-158).? San Diego: Academic.

Speidel, G.E. and Nelson K.E. (eds.). (1989).? The many faces of imitation in language learning.? New York:? Springer-Verlag.

Temchin, J. (ed.). (1993).? One-on-One:? The best women’s monologues for the nineties.? New York: Applause.

Wilshire, Bruce (1982).? Role-playing and identity:? The limits of theatre as metaphor.? Bloomington, IN: Indiana U. Press.

Winch, R.F. & Gordon, M.T. (1974).? Familial structure and function as influence.? Lexington, MA: Lexington.

Whitehurst, G.J. and Vasta, R. (1975).? Is language acquired through imitation?? Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 4, 37-59.