DOCUMENT RESUME ED 341 269 FL 020 039 AUTHOR Lambert, Wallace E. TITLE Issues in Foreign Language and Second Language Education. SPONS AGENCY Office of Bilingual Education and Minority Languages Affairs (ED), Washington, DC. PUB DATE Sep 90 NOTE 40p.; In: Proceedings of the Research Symposium on Limited English Proficient Students' Issues (1st, Washington, DC, September 10-12, 1990); see FL 020 030. PUB TYPE Speeches/Conference Papers (150) EDRS PRICE MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS Bilingual Education Programs; Comparative Analysis; Cooperative Programs; Educational Change; Elementary Secondary Education; *English (Second Language); Foreign Countries; *Language Teachers; Limited English Speaking; *Second Language Instruction; *Second Language Programs ABSTRACT Distinctions are made between foreign language (FL) and second language (SL) teaching and learning. It is suggested that several major issues emerging in FL and SL education in the United States must be considered before substantive improvements can be made in the FL or SL compe'terce of both native English speakers and those whose native language is other than English. The issues to be resolved include the following: (1) FL and SL professionals have substantially different aims, orientations, and training and their offerings are directed to different populations aZ users; (2) there is a more serious demand by those being educated for higher levels of competence in foreign language and seuond languages tnan usually occurs in school-based education programs; and (3) there are time constraints, since no extra time can be directed to language education if it curtails the comprehensive education in math, sciences, humanities, and social sciences needed in today's technical and international world markets. The integration of the talents of both FL and SL professionals and educational approaches is advocated. It is suggested that two-way bilingual immersion education programs can simultaneously enhance the language competency of both native and non-native English students without shortchanging them oa basic educational needs. Contains 72 references. (LB) ********************W************************************************** Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. ***************************************************** ***** ************* a -.1 ISSUES IN FOREIGN LANGUAGE AND SECOND LANGUAGE EDUCATIONoph.:01iSt*MTLf!cntfitc....T". EOuCATIONAL RESOURCES MFORMATX CENTER (ERto WalIace E Lamben prints OrOcuirtnt Assboon robroducod wowed from fho Mellos1 ot otOaruzato originatmig Minor MINAS nave been mad to unpro INTRODUCTION reP(oductson Quality Points or via", or opinions staled in Ulm CIOC man! Oro not oacessiarveralINIM Oft OEIcromtion or ootiov When a-ked to writc a substantial paper around this title, I was at first perplexed because I had blurred any distinctions between a "foreigr" and a "seconds language and used the terms interchangeably. In research on bilingualism, the major issue far me has been which language is acquired first and which second. Relative to the "native language" or the "mother tongue," any language, whether it is a "foreign" or 2 "second," comes second, except for the fascinating cases in which two languages arc acquired simultaneously in infancy. Working in Canada also contributes to a simplification of the distinction between the terms. In Canada there are two official national languages, and either French or English can be a first language for large numbers of Canadians. Learning the other national language would make either one of them the "second" language, even though in certain parts of the country either one could be as "foreign* a language es Spanish or Greek would be. The distinction begins to emerge when one thinks of the I Tnited States, where English is the only national langiage and where, in oversimplified terms, if Engl ish isn't a person's home language then he/she is expected to make it his/her "second" language, whereas ifEnglish is the home language, any other language one might learn is "foreign." My purpose here is to bring out various 5listiqctions between these two terms and to relate the differences to the ways foreign languages (FLs) and second languages (SLs) are supplied, by school authorities and teachers, IQ young people in schools and colleges who become the potential users of the offerings provided. The focus throughout will be on school based, formal teaching and learning of languages, not on informal, outside school sources of acquisition. Because there is usually more urgency involved in supplying SL than FL services, since SL users are under various forms of pressure to develop skills in English as quickly as possible, special attention will be directed to the SL CaSe although, it will be argued, one must give full consideration to the FL case because of the mutual benefits that can be generated wi7en the concerns of SL and FL users are brought together in innovative educational programs. It 0 will also be argued that there is a clear need fcr SL and FL program developers 0 and teachers to learn and benefit from one another. 0 2BESTCOPY AVAILABLE .71111 Comparisons of SL and FL Education The common theme in SL and FL pedagogy is the fact that both forms focus on the teaching and learning of another language different fromone's home language or mother tongue. As Ferguson (1990) pub its the ultimate concern of both SL and FL suppliers is toenhance *the acquisition of non- mother tongues? The contrasts to be drawn in this paper will suggest that, other than this very general common feature, SL and FL education are fundamentally different. But before elaborating on these perceived differences, it is appropriate to signal and provide bibliographical references to the factthat there is no consensus in the field of language pedagogy on what the essential differences are, or even whether any differences arc essential. An excellent overview is provided by Freed (1990) who basically argues that the similarities between FL and SL learning/acquisition outweigh the differences. Similarly, Gass (in press) and Kramsch (in press) are of the opinion that the learningof non-primary languages is a common field of enquiry that encompassesboth SL and FL approaches. Others see the SL form 2S more inclusive. Thus, Ellis (1986) makes FL learning one form of SL learning, as does Littlewood (1984). Others expand on the idea of a partial overlap of SL and FL learning approaches (e.g., Var Patten, 1988; Van Patten and Lee, in press), making SL learning/acquisition the common paradigm for classroom-based secondlan- guage learning, classroom-based foreignlanguage learning and outside school (untutored or natural) second language learning. Freed (1990) steps back from this argument and wonders whether the differenca that are commonlystressed may, in practice, be essentiallyartificial.Likewise, Ferguson and Huebner (1989) conclude that the apparent differences may be matters of degree rather than of kind. It is clear, then that there are various well-thought-through perspec- tives on SL and FL education and there is certainly room for yet another.The perspective developed in this paper, which places much greater emphasis on what I see 2S fundamental differences between SL and FL education, is an optique that takes preeminence if one considers the SL-FL debate from the vantage point of psycho- and sociolinguistics. For me,the SL and FL forms of education differ in their purposes, in the ways the practitioners of each form are trained and selected, in the backgrounds of the users of each form, in the concerns and preoccupations of thoseinvolved as teachers of each form, and in the impacts FL and SL suppliers have on special subgroups of users. These differences, it will bc argued, have not only practical consequences hut theoretical ones 2S well. lkrmit me to characterize these contrasts through oversimplifications of my own creation that are overdrawn to make the basic differences stand out. For me, the essential differences arc social in nature, not linguistic. 3 322 Contrasts in the Backgrounds of SL and FL Practitioners In the United States, SL oducation has been developed over the years mainly for those who have a first language other than English at some level of proficiency and who must be brought up as quickly as possible to American norms in English, making it their second language. FL education has been developed for those who have English as their native language (their first language) and who are enticed in one manner or another to learn another language that is "foreign* in the context of the basically Anglo-Saxon, world that America was thought to be. Because the orientations of SL and FL forms of education differ, two quite different cadres of suppliers have evolved, and consequently the background training and ultimate selection of the practitio- ners of SL and FL miucation are typically different. SL practitioners are specialists in and technicians of language teaching/learning, usually with training in applied linguistics and/or TESL They often become education authorities in state or federal agencia who make SL education an important part of their profession. FL practitioners, in contrast, are usually humanists, lovers of foreign treasure sites like Florence, Rome, Paris, Vienna, or pre-Mao China; usually they arc prirrarily interested in literature, in story telling and story reading, and the stories they highlight are viewed as classics, the important exports from the