Language Educators Assemble » Language Acquisition » Why NATURALISTIC LANGUAGE INPUT? (5 Advantages for Language Acquisition)

Why NATURALISTIC LANGUAGE INPUT? (5 Advantages for Language Acquisition)

What makes NATURALISTIC LANGUAGE INPUT necessary for language acquisition? Uncover its advantages in our detailed article.

Why Naturalistic Language Input

What makes NATURALISTIC LANGUAGE INPUT necessary for language acquisition? Uncover its advantages in our detailed article.

INTRODUCTION: Should NATURALISTIC LANGUAGE INPUT have a place in language classrooms?

A couple of weeks ago, as I was thinking about this topic, I was sipping coffee in a Starbucks café in the city centre of Singapore. I didn’t mean to, but I ended up eavesdropping on conversations of tourists (shall blame Starbucks for squeezing tables too close to one another). There and then, a whole slate of Japanese and Korean were heard.

Elated I was, as I’ve learned both for a while, though my Japanese is much better than my Korean, I decided to take some time to catch phrases and expressions I’ve learned in textbooks. But, oh boy, does it sound different! I managed to catch some pieces here and there, but I’d say that I need to be extremely intelligent to fill in all those empty spaces to see the whole puzzle of what they were talking about.

In relation, I was recently reviewing a variety of language textbooks intended for different age groups, in preparation for a small-scale research project. What I observed was that there seems to be a lack of NATURALISTIC LANGUAGE INPUT within those textbooks. Of course, I cannot assume that the actual language classrooms would be deprived of such, but it did strike me on the tug-of-war I often encountered amongst fellow language educators on the distribution of various types of language input that ought to be featured in language classrooms.

I believe this is familiar to many of us: on one side, we have language input meticulously tailored for our learners, considering their unique needs and learning goals; on the other side, there’s language input that’s as real as it gets, straight from the bustling streets, lively cafes, and the latest binge-worthy Netflix series. The tussle between NATURALISTIC LANGUAGE INPUT in relation to others isn’t just about words and grammar; it is a real point of contention we face as we continue to experiment with things that make learning a language truly tick.

Get real-time updates and BE PART OF THE CONVERSATIONS by joining LEA’s online communities on your favourite platforms! Connect with like-minded language educators and get inspired for your next language lesson.

What is NATURALISTIC LANGUAGE INPUT?

natural, nature, naturalistic input
Photo by Envato Elements / How input may be metaphorically represented in a natural landscape

At its core, NATURALISTIC LANGUAGE INPUT (or simply NATURALISTIC INPUT) represents the kind of exposure to language that occurs in everyday life. This is the language that learners encounter outside the classroom, in the vibrant and unpredictable world around them. It’s the authentic communication happening in grocery store checkouts, the chatter overheard on public transport, the dialogue in online videos, and even the exchanges during family dinners.

Unlike the language input within structured language lessons designed with educational goals in mind, NATURALISTIC INPUT is all about language in its most genuine form—highly variable, meaning-focused and unfiltered; used not for teaching, but for living.

So, what is the significance of NATURALISTIC INPUT for language learning? Why should we even consider featuring them within our classrooms?

1. Contextual and linguistic variability characterises NATURALISTIC LANGUAGE INPUT, an important feature that enables a complete representation of the target language.

Different Communicative Scenarios
Image generated by Ideogram / A montage of various communicative scenarios in real life

We talked about NATURALISTIC INPUT as the real deal. De-linking the notion of input from naturalistic language use, we have to understand that naturalistic language use can be imperfect. Think about this: on a larger scale, we can have different varieties (or dialects) within a language – by no means can we say that a proficient user of English can only understand British English but not Canadian English, American English or Singapore English.

Also, regional varieties can be vastly different from the standard varieties (e.g. Tyneside English to British Standard English, Sze Chuan Mandarin to Standard Mandarin). When our learners (or even ourselves) interact with target language users, we can hardly assume that only the target variety we teach in class will be used. The more international the language we teach, the more possible this scenario will be the case.

And this is why true-blue NATURALISTIC INPUT is important as it is usually highly variable: it encompasses a vast array of contexts, ranging from informal, everyday dialogue to formal, structured communication, thus providing our learners with a complete overview of the language spectrum. Depending on opportunities, it may also illuminate linguistic variation across different individual speakers of the same language. This will then enable our learners to build a holistic representation of the language across the different components of the system.

“Understanding how different contextual distributions relate to the words young children say is critical because context robustly affects basic learning and memory processes.”

Goldenberg, Repetti & Sandhofer, 2022: Contextual variation in language input to children: A naturalistic approach

I’d bring up a pertinent scenario within the context of vocabulary acquisition. As our learners acquire new words along the way, exposing them to a wide variety of NATURALISTIC INPUT with similar meanings is crucial to help build up and reinforce their internal semantic network of related words (e.g. dog: dog breed, dog leash, dog training, dog collar, dog grooming, dog veterinarian, doggy, dog park, doghouse, kennel, dog adoption, canine, pug, pup, doggy-time). This can then enable them to be more versatile in using the target language as it is in the real world (e.g. higher accuracy in collocation).

2. NATURALISTIC LANGUAGE INPUT allows learners to be acclimatised to the culture embedded in using the target language.

Language To Learn The Cultural Norms
Photo by Envato Elements / Learning a language to connect with the locals

In the earlier days of language acquisition studies, the focus was on how learners came to develop linguistic competence in a target language. We (aka language educators) were theorised to work on our responsibilities of helping our learners discover the underlying system of rules that governed how linguistic units come together to demonstrate and express meaning in the target language.

“The problem for the linguist, as well as for the child learning the language, is to determine from the data of performance the underlying system of rules that has been mastered by the speaker-hearer and that he puts to use in actual performance.”

Chomsky, 1965: Aspects of the Theory of Syntax

However, another group of scholars, as represented by Hymes (1972) proposed the concept of “communicative competence” to encompass a more comprehensive understanding of what it means to know a language. According to Hymes, an effective language user is not just characterised by an implicit understanding of grammar, but also one who can demonstrate “communicative competence” – the underlying knowledge of language to use it appropriately and interactively in various social contexts, such as using the right register, appropriate slangs/jargons or polite means of rejection.

Such an ideology has occupied the paradigm of language teaching since as the Communicative Language Teaching. Herein, the elements of culture that interfaces with language use have been significant for learning (e.g. idioms, ways conversational turns are taken, common discourse markers, when to use certain honorifics). In fact, it has become increasingly important in the educational landscape, such that “intercultural competence” has been foregrounded as an integral component in the development of total curriculum (more so in language instruction).

“The phrase intercultural communicative competence deliberately maintains a link with traditions in foreign language teaching, but expands the concept of ‘communicative competence’ in significant ways, to what I once called ‘post-communicative’ language teaching.”

Byram, 2021: Teaching and Assessing Intercultural Communicative Competence (Revisited)

What does NATURALISTIC INPUT have to do with this? For language development, we aim for our learners to learn not just what to say, but how to say it in a way that resonates with the target culture. NATURALISTIC INPUT provides the meaning-focused raw data from which learners can observe patterns of language use which reflect the target norms and nuances. It offers authenticity—a genuine peek into the daily life and communicative functions of a language that classroom-engineered can’t fully replicate. In other words, to develop intercultural competence, abundant exposure to NATURALISTIC INPUT is somewhat a pre-requisite.

“The corpus study carried out suggests that a higher degree of exposure to naturalistic language tends to have a positive impact on learners’ knowledge of discourse markers, resulting in more frequent use, better approximation of native speaker frequencies and, possibly, more fluent usage.”

Gilquin, 2016: From classroom to naturalistic input

3. NATURALISTIC LANGUAGE INPUT conditions learners to undergo natural language processing.

Representation Of Language Processing In The Human Mind
Image generated by Bing Image Creator / An active mind in processing the complexities of natural language use

We may wonder upon seeing this: Isn’t Natural Language Processing the business of computational linguistics or AI? How is it related to our learners and language learning per se?

Actually, if we do have some experience or fundamental knowledge of model training for generative AI engines, one of the core challenges is always to deal with humans’ unfiltered unpredictability. In that regard, processing of natural language is also layered with similar challenges: naturalistic production of language is so “unfiltered” that our learners may be subject to quantum leaps in difficulty level as compared to a classroom-tailored experience.

Put it simply, experiencing NATURALISTIC INPUT conditions our learners to process the target language as it’s authentically used in everyday communication. Our learners get to see grammar rules in action, not just isolated examples. Adding to that, they have the opportunity to experience the genuine prosody of speech, enhancing their capacity to understand and produce the target language at a natural pace.

Join our mailing list!

Receive insights and EXCLUSIVE resources on language education in a monthly newsletter, fresh into your inbox. No Fees, No Spam, so No Worries!

Post Subscription Box

4. There are many opportunities for incidental language learning within NATURALISTIC LANGUAGE INPUT.

Let’s face the hard cold truth. In our classrooms, we have a curriculum to cover and specific milestones to manage. To be frank, if we don’t have a structure in our classrooms, our learners might as well be learning the target language in the wild.

However, with structures come systematic intention. We generally engineer the language experiences in the classrooms. Even with some space for manoeuvring, our learners’ attention are generally set on addressing certain elements in the input we want them to process (an example of input enhancement). Our learners may encounter significantly lower amount of opportunities to discover other aspects of the language under such structured guidance.

NATURALISTIC INPUT, as a set of organic information, thus presents numerous opportunities for spontaneous language acquisition. When our learners attend to NATURALISTIC INPUT with less scaffolds in absence of enhancement techniques, they probably attend to meaning as the immediate intent but may also form different hypotheses about the linguistic forms based on what they have been exposed to. Depending on the types of NATURALISTIC INPUT engaged, different learners may derive different linguistic insights after validating their hypotheses (implicitly though) through repeated exposures, learning forms such as specific lexical items, phonological patterns or pragmatic conventions – things that we may find challenging to impart in explicit instruction. 

“Although estimation figures differ, it is safe to say that adolescent native speakers of English who have completed high school, have a receptive vocabulary of at least 20,000 base words (i.e., words without the inflectional forms, derivations or compounds that can be made of it, such as “open,” but not “opened,” “opener” or “door opening”). The accepted view is that they cannot have learned such a large number of words solely by means of explicit vocabulary instruction. Rather, they must have learned most words in an incremental way through repeated encounters through listening and reading.”

Hulstijn, 2013: Incidental learning in second language acquisition

5. Ultimately, NATURALISTIC LANGUAGE INPUT serves as an important element in the evaluation of proficiency in the organic use of the target language.

Real Test For Language Learners
Image generated by Bing Image Creator / The real test for learners in the messy real world beyond the classroom walls

Supposedly we’ve engaged our learners over a semester of language learning and have put them through a number of formative assessment activities. Based on our tools, our learners have apparently achieved enough delta in their linguistic knowledge and proficiency to attain a milestone in the curriculum. So, how do we know that they are now capable of handling similar situations in the real world?

Traditional language formative assessment often relies on structured tests and compartmentalised measures of language proficiency, which, while valuable, may not fully capture our learners’ ability to use language flexibly and contextually. Just as languaging experiences in the classrooms are mostly engineered and structured, much of our classroom language assessment takes into account our learners’ initial starting point and the desired ending point after undergoing our teaching and learning. We are largely trying to infer from a piece of evidence (e.g. the linguistic performance of our learners on a specific language task) the linguistic growth in our learners. That may not amount to a real-life languaging scenario which can be much more complex (or surprisingly simpler depending on the exact communicative context).

In that sense, NATURALISTIC LANGUAGE INPUT, through its unfiltered exposure to the language environment, demands a more holistic engagement of language skills (and extralinguistic communication skills). It enables the identification of nuances and complexities in linguistic abilities that standardised tests might overlook, providing insights into the gaps of our learners in their practical application of language in everyday settings.

Ultimately, we want our learners to function without hiccups when using the target language with others – think about the moments when some LLM-enabled tool spits out something ludicrous and socially awkward. From the perspective of linguistic input, NATURALISTIC LANGUAGE INPUT helps connect the dots within our learners’ language network of linguistic units, boosting their ability in integrated language comprehension and production in fluid, real-life interactions.

Limitations:  Exposure to SOLELY NATURALISTIC LANGUAGE INPUT for learning can result in language delays for beginners, including young children.

Frustrated Child In Learning Language
Image generated by Air Brush / An active mind in processing the complexities of natural language use

“In short, overheard speech does not support early language learning because language growth requires much more than words passing children’s ears.”

Golinkoff et al., 2019: Language Matters: Denying the Existence of the 30-Million-Word Gap has Serious Consequences

Despite the manifold benefits of NATURALISTIC INPUT, relying solely on this form of language exposure can present immense challenges (e.g. normative adult speech to infants, intense debate between native speakers for beginners). 

In the initial stages of learning, individuals may find it beneficial to have more calibrated input (e.g. caregiver deliberately interacting with child using simplified input) instead of input that is less consistent – something that is also prominent in the debate on the quality and quantity of input. This involves using simpler language with less complexity, such as repeating certain contextual words more often and using basic expressions, primarily from L1 users of the target language. By providing input that has regularities, these learners can better grasp the initial patterns in the language to develop their foundational knowledge.

However, NATURALISTIC INPUT, as mentioned earlier, is usually “highly variable, meaning-focused and unfiltered”. And so, it may impose too high a cognitive demand on young learners and beginners in the initial developmental stages of their language learning. If we are only providing such exposure to such learners, then we may be inadvertently delaying their early growth in the language.

Join our mailing list!

Receive insights and EXCLUSIVE resources on language education in a monthly newsletter, fresh into your inbox. No Fees, No Spam, so No Worries!

Post Subscription Box

CONCLUSION: So, how do we feature NATURALISTIC LANGUAGE INPUT in our approach?

I hope that we have understood the significance of NATURALISTIC LANGUAGE INPUT in language acquisition. Its role in promoting organic learning and development of real communicative competence makes it a critical component of effective language education. However, the incorporation of NATURALISTIC LANGUAGE INPUT into our holistic language educational approach necessitates calibrated strategies since we know its limitation. At the very least, we should be cognisant of the other types of language input that needs to be factored in.

If you’re keen to explore possible approaches to introduce or engage with NATURALISTIC LANGUAGE INPUT for your learners, you can also proceed to check my out my article on  15 actionable strategies for language teachers to feature Naturalistic Language Input

Thank you for reading! If you like what you are reading, do subscribe to our mailing list to receive updated resources and tips for language educators. Please also feel free to provide us any feedback or suggestions on content that you would like covered.

References

Bohn, O., & Bundgaard-Nielsen, R.L. (2009). Second Language Speech Learning with Diverse Inputs. In Piske, T., & Young-Scholten, M. (Eds.), Input Matters in SLA (pp. 207 – 218). Bristol UK: Multilingual Matters.

Dahl, A., & Vulchanova, M. D. (2014). Naturalistic acquisition in an early language classroom. Frontiers in Psychology, 5(2014).

Dominey, P. F. (2013). Recurrent temporal networks and language acquisition – From  corticostriatal neurophysiology to reservoir computing. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 500.

Flege, J.E. (2009). Give Input a Chance!. In Piske, T., & Young-Scholten, M. (Eds.), Input Matters in SLA (pp. 175 – 190). Bristol UK: Multilingual Matters.

Gilquin, G. (2016). From classroom to naturalistic input. In Timofeeva, O., Gardner, A. C., Honkapohja, A., & Chevalier, S. (Eds.), New approaches to English linguistics: Building bridges (pp. 213–249). Amsterdam Netherlands: John Benjamins.

Goldenberg, E. R., Repetti, R. L., & Sandhofer, C. M. (2022). Contextual variation in language input to children: A naturalistic approach. Developmental psychology58(6), 1051–1065.

Golinkoff, R.M., Hoff, E., Rowe, M., Tamis-LeMonda, C.S., & Hirsh-Pasek, K. (2019). Language Matters: Denying the Existence of the 30-Million-Word Gap has Serious Consequences. Child Development, 90(1), 985–992.

Hitczenko, K., & Feldman, N. H. (2022). Naturalistic speech supports distributional learning across contexts. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America119(38), e2123230119.

Hulstijn, J. H. (2013). Incidental learning in second language acquisition. In Chapelle, C. A. (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics (Vol. 5, pp. 2632-2640). Hoboken USA: Wiley-Blackwell.

King, L. S., Camacho, M. C., Montez, D. F., Humphreys, K. L., & Gotlib, I. H. (2021). Naturalistic language input is associated with resting-state functional connectivity in infancy. Journal of Neuroscience, 41(3), 424-434.

Montag, J.L., Jones, M.N., & Smith, L.B. (2018). Quantity and Diversity: Stimulating Early Word Learning Environments. Cognitive Science, 42(2), 375–412.

Sinkeviciute, R., Brown, H., Brekelmans, G., & Wonnacott, E. (2019). The Role of Input Variability and Learner Age in Second Language Vocabulary Learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41(4), 795-820.

Unsworth, S. (2016). Quantity and Quality of Language Input in Bilingual Language Development. In Nicoladis, E., & Montanari, S. (Eds.), Bilingualism Across the Lifespan: Factors Moderating Language Proficiency (pp. 103-122). Berlin Germany: Mouton De Gruyter.