Dr. Lungren's building material metaphor about vocabulary types lingered in my mind. It reminded me of the vital role vocabulary plays in language acquisition. I once heard that vocabulary is like the asphalt that paves the way for us, to explore far and wide, rendering difficult places easier to navigate and explore. Asphalt is made up of gravel and a petroleum based substance called bitumen, otherwise known as tar. Similar to how gravel and bitumen combine to create a durable road surface, different types of vocabulary words, some more technical than others, bind together to form a cohesive linguistic foundation.

Social language vocabulary acts as the gravel, representing the fundamental elements of language necessary for everyday communication. Meanwhile, advanced vocabulary functions as the bitumen, adding depth, complexity, and precision to language expression, particularly in academic and specialized contexts. The two bind together, and are laid down, so that we may easily travel to and discover these new places.

By understanding and embracing the complementary nature of social and academic language vocabulary, educators can effectively support English language learners. Just as asphalt provides a reliable surface for travel, a well-rounded vocabulary equips learners with the tools needed to navigate the complexities of language and communicate in more nuanced settings.

After reviewing the videos and delving into the three major theories of both first and second language acquisition, I've drawn some conclusions about how humans acquire a second language. In the first of the three theories, Noam Chomsky developed what he referred to as an innate language learning device. This device inherited genetically from its ancestors. He called this inherited trait the Language Acquisition Device. However, I'm not entirely convinced that we have innate instincts regarding linguistics that predisposes us to instinctually respond to language specific grammar cues.

I tend to favor the second theory of language acquisition proposed by the behaviorists. They emphasize the critical period for language acquisition, which occurs between the ages of two and eight. Personally, I lean towards the behaviorists' theories, which suggest that human behavior, including the acquisition of language, is shaped by reactions to their behavior, like rewards and punishments. and without appeal to thoughts and feelings or some innate mechanism.

I do believe that humans are born with natural biological and physiological mechanisms that favor habituation. Habituation, coupled with rewards given for primary reinforcers like food, water, and shelter/safety during the early years of life, tends to be enough to facilitate the acquisition of language at an optimal rate. For instance, crying for food, water, and safety quickly transitions into speech. This explains why we acquire both first and second languages more easily during our most dependent times.

Now, as we grow older and attempt to acquire a second language, it becomes more challenging due to the limited availability of reward and punishment systems. Unless we are dropped off in a foreign land with foreign languages and find the need to learn language to find food, water, and shelter; unless we are met with primary reinforcers, we will be less likely to learn language as easily. This is something to think about when teaching concepts to older ELs in their second language. Understanding what motivates and inhibits children, at any give age, will prove an effective study. For instance, as children get older and more socialized, their motivations change. I think of Steven Krashen's concept of "affective filter." Krashen suggests that self-confidence, anxiety levels, attitudes towards the language and its speakers, and high motivation can lower the affective filter.

Behavior is shaped by rewards and punishment, and has great service to all the other strategies we will learn about second language acquisition.