Learning a Second Language

 

          Learning a new language is not an easy process. It is complicated, and it requires a great deal of patience and diligence. Once one starts learning a new language, there must be some strategies to be taken into consideration. First, all languages consists of vocabulary and grammar. They are the core of the learning process. Vocabulary in the process of acquiring a language is like money. You earn it with your conscious effort, or you get it as a gift. To show how important vocabulary is, imagine that you enter a hypermarket such as WalMart. If you have a lot of money, you can buy whatever you want; on the other hand, if you are broke, you will not be able to purchase any item. The second element of acquiring a new language is concerned with grammar. If vocabulary, as previously mentioned, is money, grammar can similarly be the right investment of that money. You might lose your money if you do not invest it in the proper way. Grammar, in this case, defines the structures that organize your earnings.

           Learning a language can take place consciously or unconsciously. In a conscious learning of a new language, you are learning with paying your fullest attention to what is given to you. For instance, if you learn a language at school, you are aware of your learning; in other words, you know what you are taught. This can be beneficial when you learn the grammar of the target language. In an unconscious learning, you acquire the language without being aware of the learning process. A good example to clarify it is when you read a story or listen to the media. You are looking for amusement or for news in the first place; however, you are learning new vocabulary and structures at the same time. This type of learning is subtle and effective since it involves learning the lexical items and grammatical structures all together. You get the items in context, and that is the ultimate goal of learning any language.

           These strategies are not novel, and I am suer that we all realize the cruciality of learning the vocabulary and grammar of any new language. However, it is worth mentioning that language learning is a great field of study, and there are many theories that investigate how we acquire a language. Those theories are not perfect by themselves; in other words, there is not a single and perfect theory which offer a full explanation of how every language learner acquires the language. The theories of language acquisitions focus on certain aspects of the language is acquired. In some cases, a theory such as the Behaviorist can successfully trace, attribute, and demonstrate language acquisition. In other cases, the Behaviorist approach fails, and the Innateness approach provides a more logical explanation to the process of acquiring the new language.

           The reason why I mention the existence of such theories is to emphasize the fact that theories and scholars differ when it comes to explaining language acquisition. The same thing applies for language learners. Learner are disparate; but the only thing they have in common is motivation. The accuracy of the language acquired is dependent on the motivation element. When the learner wants to be native-like, he normally exerts more effort to learn new vocabulary and grammatical structures. He does not have any shyness of using what he has just learnt; he will endeavor to pick up the pronunciation of the native speakers, and he will seek corrections when he doubts a misuse of any element of the language. Other learners, on the other hand, learn the language because it can facilitate a certain privilege which cannot be gained without learning the language. This type of learners will only seek the minimal knowledge that entitles them to obtain such a benefit.

           To sum up, learning a second language is fascinating in terms of acquiring the language or as a field of a study. As to me, I am learning a second language and will probably study language acquisition for my masters. As to you, enjoy your learning and have the utmost of it.

Freedom or Harassment?

          We do not value anything as much as we value freedom; it is really the thing that fulfills all the deep desires defining who we are and what we want. The more freedom granted to a society, the more developed and prosperous that society is likely to become. Individually speaking, we can notice that we are likely to achieve anything that we willingly choose; on the contrary, when we are forced to do what we do not genuinely believe in, we usually fail to accomplish the required tasks. Nevertheless, that freedom must be restricted; we actually have no absolute freedom. In fact, total freedom exists only in the forests. 

          Freedom of speech is a kind of freedom that we really enjoy. We have the freedom to discuss any topic of our choice, to debate it, and to elaborate on it. We proudly enjoy the freedom of choosing arguments, formulating rules governing our discussions, and selecting the media through which arguments are presented. 

          The diversity of opinions about any given topic is the core of the freedom we relish; otherwise, our opinions would be of less value if everyone had the very point of view that we have. What we argue for or against is a controversial issue. You have your opinions on a certain topic, and I have my own standpoint. You present your argument, and I present mine; your wits, thoughts, and persuasive tactics are against mine. We meet, sit, and have our discussion. I know, for sure, that you want me to be convinced of your point of view, and my intentions are identically similar, to persuade you of what I believe in. Later, we smile, shake hands, and depart; you still have your own opinions, and I remain committed to my beliefs. 

          This is the lovely scenario that all kinds of disagreements should follow; if not, other uncivilized methods would occur. When we resort to barbarous means to settle our difference in opinions, freedom is considered dead. It no longer exists; what prevails then is an ugly, backward, and mean dictatorship. 

         The previous part was to illustrate what we should have to coexist together regardless of our disagreement. Now, I need to elaborate on the question of how much freedom is required to encompass all opinions; what are the limits, if any, on our freely expressing ideas and thoughts? How can we achieve the joy of experiencing freedom? When is my opinion considered offensive and no longer a manifestation of thought? 

          From my perspective, limits promote freedom. When we set out limits, we acknowledge the right for everyone of us to exist. We do not live alone on this planet; we live together, and the word “together” signifies the diversity that we should really appreciate. Everything around us in this wide world is diverse, and we would not bear life, had the world been but one thing. The whole world calls for such variation. 

         Sometimes, however, some people tend to neglect all these values to which we all agree. In a recent case, Albert Snyder is suing the Hillsboro Baptist Church. This case is all about the vague boundary that separates the freedom of speech as a right from denigration. Whether I agree with the Church or Snyder is not the issue discussed here; the question is whether the demonstration which the Church held at the Snyder's funeral of his son belongs to freedom of speech or denigration. To perceive the situation fully, we need to put ourselves in Snyder's shoes. The man is in his son's funeral; many loud cries such as “pray for more dead soldiers,” “thank God for 9/11,” “fangs die, God laughs.” 

          These signs evoke disgust and hatred to the nation which has bestowed freedom of speech upon them. Always showing up at similar funerals, they think those phrases they shout would change the world. They are not; indeed, those hateful shouts would make people sympathize with the families of the dead and hate the Church. 

        Frankly, I can see no difference between this Church and AlQaeda. The claims, the hateful expressions, and the dwelling upon the people's distress are the same. If they are to protest against particular issues, they should address their complaints and concerns to the appropriate authority. Showing up in funerals to harass the families, who have nothing to do with whatever that member has chosen for himself or herself, is not sane in any way. 

          What they are doing is nothing but adding insult to injury; that can never be the freedom of speech that is granted by the First Amendment of the Constitution.