Mechanistic vs. Holistic Language Learning – a Paradigm Change or Paradigm Paralysis?

Vytenis Končius

doi:10.47459/svuv.2021.6.15

Abstract

There are three ways to view the relationship between traditional (“mechanistic”) and innovative (“holistic”) second language teaching and learning: as nearing towards a paradigm shift, as an existing dialectic tension between two competing paradigms, or as a state of “paradigm paralysis”. Paradigm is an overall concept accepted by a community of researchers or specialists as the main guiding principle in their endeavour. The mechanistic paradigm of second language learning regards the language acquisition process as that of conscious artificial construction of language knowledge in a learner’s mind. The persistent and widespread failure of traditional second language instruction to produce fluent speakers might be attributed not only to the faults on the part of learners or teachers but also to the underlying paradigm of teaching. Is second language teaching moving towards the paradigm shift in the Kuhnian sense or are the two paradigms co-existing side by side generating fruitful discussion? Is “paradigm paralysis”, i.e. entrenchment of both sides in rigid and inflexible opposition, also a reality in the field of language teaching? Our evolving understanding of language and learning urges us to compare mechanistic and holistic approaches, develop new perspectives and make informed decisions.

Highlights

Despite our new insights into the nature of language and learning, most of the traditional thinking that underlies second language teaching – courses, textbooks, school curricula, etc. – is still largely based on the concept that language acquisition is a linear, mechanical, consciously controlled, brick-by-brick building process in learner’s mind. Learners undergo this process of formal language instruction and are expected to internalize the vocabulary and grammar presented in the curriculum
What we do have is knowledge about language and learning which allows us to judge certain content and methodology to be better than we have had in the past The Lexical Approach invites readers to dismiss, or at least radically deemphasize materials and procedures which violate either the nature of language or the nature of learning. (Lewis 1993, p. ix). What does this paradigm change involve and most importantly – what does it imply for the traditional roles of teacher and learner and how would it impact the process of language teaching in the future?
As examples of paradigm change we can think of many instances in the old or more recent developments of science: transition from geocentric to heliocentric model in Astronomy, from Newtonian to quantum model in Physics, from unlimited growth to sustainability model in Economics, – from “atomistic” to holistic understanding of many phenomena: the natural world, social phenomena, human body, psychological phenomena, including our understanding of second language acquisition

Summary

Introduction

Despite our new insights into the nature of language and learning, most of the traditional thinking that underlies second language teaching – courses, textbooks, school curricula, etc. – is still largely based on the concept that language acquisition is a linear, mechanical, consciously controlled, brick-by-brick building process in learner’s mind. The assumption is that if this material is properly mastered and sufficient practice is carried out, this should ensure the successful acquisition of the language at the desired level (A2, B1, B2, etc.) and produce fluent speakers According to this view, the failure of a learner to acquire the language during this process of formal instruction should be attributed either to the lack of practice, bad attendance of classes, insufficient concentration, or faults on the part of a teacher. The main question, should be not how to “push” the language into a learner’s mind, but how to create these “right conditions” and best aid him/her in their natural process of acquisition Another useful insight from observation and experience is that learning is essentially the process of discovery – getting acquainted with and getting used to a language is a highly individual process, because it organically relates new information with what has already been known to the learner. What does this paradigm change involve and most importantly – what does it imply for the traditional roles of teacher and learner and how would it impact the process of language teaching in the future?

Paradigm shift

Model Drift

Conclusions

Literature

Vilniaus kolegija