Learning Chinese as a Second Language

Adult Second Language Learning: Chinese Semantics, Explicit Learning

The area of second language learning (Chinese) is explored in this work in view of the appropriateness of the methodologies expounded by literature on the subject. Specifically, the proper use of explicit teaching method by incorporating aids like cues, pairing, sequential affectations, and the timing of radical disposition has been attempted in this work. The knowledge of previous work has been used to evaluate the utility of explicit teaching methodology to adult learners of Chinese language. The outcome arrived at is that with certain restrictions (because of certain limitations of the study), explicit learning methodology can be a faster tool than implicit methods as displayed in longer retention of the learned concepts. Also, explicit teaching can aid expansion of vocabulary amongst learners if imbued with the right implements in shorter time compared to implicit teaching methodology.

Introduction

According to Taft and Chung (1999) knowledge of radicals helps students grasp Chinese characters much better. They hold that students (children) of the language can grasp the language better through the method of explicit teaching of the radicals. The possible inspiration for such direction is the thought of relation between recall and stimulus proposed by Craik and Lockhart in 1972. According to their (Craik and Lockhart, 1972) contention, under the "levels of processing" theory that they put forth, students ingrain stimulus during their early learning phase better if the explanation of radicals is a part of language teaching. Such a relational correspondence and interactivity leads to better recall through amplified stimulus (Craik & Lockhart, 1972). The teaching of radicals, they believe, causes a heightened activity in the brain that makes it easier to recall than if radicals are not taught during the initial period of language learning. Their natural extension of the theory was that deeper involvement (with radicals and explanations in early stage of learning) would result in more stimulation leading to better recall value for a longer period. (Taft & Chung, 1999)

Understanding the basics of Chinese language involves the knowledge of radicals in conjunction with the characters. The moot question then is: what is the better sequence of teaching, radicals followed by character knowledge, both of them (radicals and characters) simultaneously or teaching the characters without first providing knowledge about radicals that go into forming the characters, i.e. teaching the radicals much later. In the experiments conducted, the last option (that of teaching the radicals at a later stage of learning) proved to be decisively unhelpful in language-learning process. According to the propositions put forth by Craik and Lockhart (1972), the expected logical extension would be that the introduction of radicals to Chinese language learners helps easier grasping and retention. That expectation arises from the understanding that the stimulus causing interaction is a better method of activating the parts of brain concerned with cognition, awareness, co-relationship and retention that form the basis for language learning. Further, it was expected that prior knowledge of radicals would make character mapping and recognition easier to imbibe through relational logic between the two. This anticipation was unfounded, as those who were taught radicals along with characters fared better in learning the language than those that were taught the radicals earlier (Craik & Lockhart, 1972). Even though the students were taught about the radicals and the logical extension of that knowledge to formation of characters, they were unable to apply the same when asked to correlate with characters at a later stage. The implication is that prior knowledge of radicals that go into making of characters is not an asset to faster learning. Similar results were seen in students who were taught radicals at later stage, that is, after they were introduced to radicals. Thus, students without knowledge of radicals, with knowledge of radicals at later stage and those taught the radicals before they were taught characters, all performed similarly in recognition of characters- inability to memorize characters of Chinese language. Even though in some cases students exhibited immediate capability for retention, over time, all such retention ceased to exist. The inference that could be drawn is that students find it easier to establish or co-relate better between the radicals and characters, if they (radicals and characters) are taught at the same time (Taft & Chung, 1999)).

Another dimension of teaching languages is that of providing cues to learning through the use "pairing." In this method, abstract images are shown in relation to certain characters that aid the memorizing process. Images are used to establish the relationship between a radical and a character and can be an aid to memory. However, the difficulty arises from the fact that the relationship between a character and corresponding radical is not very direct phonetically. They may vary substantially. According to Fan, Gao & Ao (1984), the phonetic similarity between radicals and characters appears in only one-fourth of the Chinese characters (Dunlap, Perfetti, & Liu, 2011; Taft & Chung, 1999))

Thus, following the continued discussion about the priority of radical teaching- before, along with or later than introduction of characters, or for that matter, the use of additional tools to inspire faster learning the net inference is that having knowledge of radicals is an important criterion in grasping the essence of Chinese language as propounded by Taft and Chung (Taft & Chung, 1999).

The natural progression of the above discussion in learning Chinese language requires exploration of the appropriate methodology to implement while engaging second language learners- implicit or explicit learning. This forms the basis of the current paper, too. The authors of this paper take cue from the observation of Newport (1990) that children are much faster and accurate learners of grammar, phonetics and lexicons or semantics and syntax than adults (Newport, 1990). The issue arises when choosing between implicit and explicit teaching. Proponents of implicit methodology, for example, Knowlton et al. (1996) forward the further case of amnesic patients (in addition to the children's learning capability, which is also implicit) whose performance in language skills is equivalent to those of normal adults even though lacking in explicit memory (Knowlton, Squire, & Mangels, 1996). As sequential learning is the base of explicit learning methodology, Cleeremans and Jimenez (1998) sought to explore the effect of multiple tasking (that Chinese language necessitates) on concentration while learning a language. They inferred that sequential learning requires the student's selective attention; it helps in the process of predicting characters (DeKeyser, 2008). It is worth remembering that radicals form characters of the Chinese language (DeKeyser, 2008).

Results

With regards to the semantically regular Chinese characters, the results of the immediate recall test indicate that the participants who did the learning trials using explicit learning took a shorter period of time to write down the meaning of characters in English as compared to those who learned using implicit learning. On the other hand, with regards to the semantically irregular Chinese characters, results indicate that those who learnt using the implicit way of learning found it harder to write the meanings of the characters as they used a time frame of 43 minutes compared to the 33 minutes of the explicit learning participants. The two-way repeated measures in ANOVA showed a significant effect of regularity rated F (1, 92) = 22.84, p

Discussion

The outcomes of the two experiments divulged a lot. To start with, it indicated that the adult learners have a better chance of understanding and retaining what has been taught when using explicit learning as compared to implicit learning. On the other hand, there was a better level of translation when it comes to the tasks or examinations undertaken not immediately but rather after a delayed period of time once the learning is done implicitly. The results are parallel to the research study results undertaken by Taft and Chung (1999). The outcomes indicated that the recollection or memory of the Chinese character meanings were best for the participants who were first taught about the radicals and had time to learn the set of characters comprehensively. This is parallel to explicit learning in this particular case study. This was different from implicit learning where the students were not given any previous information regarding the radicals or handed a period of time to fully learn about the characters (Taft and Chung, 1999). Nevertheless, observations made showed that despite the fact that the students did have the knowledge of cues, they did not necessarily have to make use of them at all times when taught explicitly.

These two study results are in line with the research study undertaken by Dunlap et al. (2011) in the sense that it shows that consistent and dependable semantic information can be of assistance for second language learners when making an attempt to study new words, characters and meanings. The study by Dunlap and her colleagues made an attempt to determine whether semantic subcomponents were dependable cues to the connotations of words and also whether semantic info was being imparted in an implicit or explicit way. In the end, similar to the aforementioned studies, the results showed that learners can gain a benefit by first learning the connection there is between semantic subcomponents and also the connotations of words which in turn can be applied when being taught new vocabulary (Dunlap et al., 2011).