New language acquisition and internal sppech.

Your internal speech plays a major role in the new language acquisition. Which is a process in itself?
Your internal speech is governed by your faith in the scripting style and sound probability patterns you follow.
It is much more complex than it seems. First you listen–analyze–differentiate–interpret–memorize–Then you try to make it the base on which you build your internal speech.
You listen to words—Try to memorize them by making image files—store them as a retrieval tool to get the actual sound file, the word-sound.
Before you start to speak any second language you are taking lessons on, you try to practice to avoid slip-ons and you take help of the internal speech before you finally decide to utter according to your ease and comfort.
The power of internal speech cannot be over-looked when it comes to the expression of thoughts in any language you want to try your hands on; the same goes with language anxiety related to a second Language.
A written word form is not just a written word; it is a recovery tool to get the actual word sound. Reading is a lot easier if the script is written in specific format and if we follow that basic layout of letter arrangement.
We just have to remember as to what sound a particular set of letters would give if arranged in a specific format.
The idea is to make the spelling speak for itself. The spelling should itself indicate that I represent such sound.
It has been observed that your internal speech is often mutilated by your blind faith in the scripting style and sound pattern you follow.
And the fact is that no body taught you with precision, it’s your own creation. Your own imagination!
It’s a matter of concern worldwide since there had been no governing body to lay out some rules on this.
Your internal speech mediates your ability to differentiate between sound patterns/sound probabilities and the final utterance. And if your internal Speech is affected by a subscripting style or if you apply the same understanding of script to every other language, you’ll never get the sounds right. No matter how hard you try, you’ll always sound like an alien.

There are broadly two approaches followed worldwide help disciples learn a language: script centric and sound centric.

Script Centric approach

Script centric approach is often observed in regions where English is taught as a second language. Focus is on the appearance of words in script form and very less importance is given to the actual word sounds, to actual pronunciation. The emphasis is on to teach them just read, write, and memorize literature, not the live language.
You are shown a script and asked to memorize the structures as such. You are also advised of the pronunciation, but is most of the times not correct. The knowledge of the frame work/arrangement of letters is so distant and vague, that no matter how many literatures you read, or even if you do masters in the language, you still speak what is not easily understood across the world.
You listen and see words with time. You try to form script images; try to memorize script forms and corresponding sound forms.
You always needed reliable assuring system, as you can’t go to somebody for help every other time. You try to make some perception of the way letters behave in a group.
You also try to memorize some sound files. For words, you haven’t seen the script form, you try to apply your speech perceptions. More often, you write wrong spellings. Your spelling wouldn’t necessarily be phonetically wrong, but when you try to double check, you may find that you were wrong. From this, you learn something new to add to your script perception prowess.
English language acquisition in those regions is based on the script only. Phonetics and phonological studies are not recognized.
Even if you try to teach them the pronunciation of every other word, either they will not remember it for long or they’ll go back to their old comfortable way of saying those many words. It is actually very hard for people from a particular region to alter pronunciation of a set of words so as to use correct pronunciation, because it has never been pronounced right there, and they are quite comfortable with that, as everybody speaks that way.

The reflection of respective regional languages is very prominent in your speech.

Sound centric approach

Sound centric approach is observed in regions having English as a native language. You get to learn the language much before you go to school or even if you don’t go to
school. In school, you learn the corresponding letters of basic sounds you already know. As native speakers are already easy with the sounds, would only need to learn the relationship between sounds and script.
Though it is an effective way to learn the live language, is also not backed with solid reasoning, as to why we find a corrupt alphabetic system; why few word forms aren’t suggestive of the speech sound and why we have to memorize them as they are.
Native speakers also stumble when they are encountered with unpredictably chaotic spellings to get the speech sound.

Neither the literary approach, where the emphasis is on memorizing words as they appear, nor the sound centric approach where you are taught of the pronunciation first and then to learn to relate to the orthography, is productive enough for learners.
The sound approach can be really helpful if we top it up with reformed orthography and rules to decipher word sounds.
With the introduction of uniform rules to capture word sound, we can make learning and communication a lot easier.

If the script is not good enough, you try to memorize the word sounds. However, your sound perceptions are hardwired in your brain & which in-turn helps you memorize words; as you are familiar with the letters already, you try to apply it whenever you hear a new sound.

You see a new word; you do not know of the actual sound; you simply apply you script perception; make a corresponding sound file & try to memorize the sound form & script form simultaneously.
You hear a new word; you do not know of the script form; you apply sound perception to get the corresponding sound, & try to memorize them accordingly.
Script and sound go hand in hand. Because of the different prevalent script perceptions, holding on to a uniform scripting style and sound probability patterns is lot easier than to remember script and sound separately. It is actually very difficult to retrieve every other word if we leave it to the memorizing & retrieving prowess of our brain. It is actually too much.
Scripting style is a help to memorize and ascertain word sound, to decipher the actual word sound.

How does it work?
Let us take it through reading.
What is reading? To reading right is to pronounce every word with precision.
When you read a script, you try to match the visuals (script) with the image files stored in your brain, & try to pull the corresponding sound file.
You see a word and search for the sound file. If you are familiar with the word, you match it up with the visual image stored in your brain & pull the corresponding sound file. Moreover, if the sound file stored was created in ignorance of sound probabilities and frequency, & under the influence of a sub-scripting style; you will utter what is not the actual sound, but your own creation.
Many a times when you happened to see a word after a long time and you know that you know but somehow find yourself struggling to get the exact meaning or the pronunciation. You immediately start to apply your morph-phonological understanding, & most of the times you miss it and utter wrong. Such ad hoc decisions of utterance are solely based on the impact of a sub-scripting style.
A learner from a non-English speaking region would have difficulties with reading, writing, and speaking. Where as a native speaker would have difficulties related
to reading and writing. It cries for a very good memory, but good memory is just not enough for a non-native speaker.
It is a lot easier to remember word sound with the script form. You have a reference, and it is a lot easier to remember and pull words out of the store, if we had a reference file.
Now a question could arise, how do native speakers who do not know how to read, remember words?
They use a small set of words in their daily speech, whereas a non-native English speaker uses words from two or three languages. A native speaker who does know how to write would even have a smaller vocabulary, than the one who is literate; a fairly small set of words for a specific life style.
She would solely rely on her memory to remember words. Moreover, if her memory is low, so are the chances of becoming a good speller.
The idea is to mend the knowledge and conceptual disconnect. Build a system of learning to help learners read, write, and speak right.
It is observed that the whole process of recollecting the stored information to spell a new word or of recollecting sound patterns for enunciation is not so trustworthy. If we could put some logic to it, to avoid errors entailed to conjectures; with a systematic simplification of sound probabilities and pattern of letters, we can regularize language if we bring some solid logical reasoning.
Identification of sound patterns would come easy if we all follow a universal system

Jalapeno and a spanish tilde.

Actual pronunciation: Accentuated Hal sound--schwa---Accentuated Pain sound---yo.
The word Jalapeno has a diacritic mark over 'n' called tilde (wave).
English version: Hal--schwa---pen--yo.
Indian version: Jal or Jul--schwa---Pee or pei-----no.
The change from ‘painyo’ to ‘Pen-yo’ or ‘peeno’ or ‘payno’ is not good for a word.

Thanks to pizza makers in India who lend me a chance to savor this Mexican pepper.
I had been to Bangalore, Mumbai, Delhi, Pune, Chennai, Hyderabad; everywhere I found people confused over the pronunciation of this word.
I heard them say Jal--schwa--Pei--no, or Jull sound--aa sound---accentuated Pee---no, and what not.
I would go in a cafe; order some stuff, and try to pretend as if I m struggling to read ‘Jalapeno’. I’ll make a stupid face which comes so naturally to me, and ask, “How do we read Jal-a-pa?”
It's a real fun. I savor such situations.
They would read it the weirdest of weirdest ways out of their imagination. They’ll have a look----apply their script understanding and just say it.
It's rather amusing for me to see people being so stern without having any distant clue. “No it's not as you say it"; "It's peno".
If some word is introduced to non-English region, most likely the written form is the one that is fanned out first. News papers, billboards, magazines, etc. People see it; apply their script understanding to read it and try to make it a part of their vocabulary. Their belief in their version of sound is strengthened when they happened to hear it from 3-4 ilks, which somehow had the same blend of mind.
They try to read as it’s written and as they understand it.
A new word, which appears in print first, is susceptible to much more damage than if had been introduced in spoken form.
It's like a bull let loose in an arena, and everybody is like a matador.
They try get to grips with a new word but end up distorting it beyond recognition.
Or write in particular way which clearly indicates their understanding of English alphabetic arrangement. The arrangement of letters is so distinctively unique; it's anything but English or even Hindi.
Even if we give the exact sound with written form, there is no guarantee that everybody would remember it after a month or two. People rely on spellings and their phonological understanding too much. They try to remember the sound, its lexical application, but after a few months, they will only remember the spelling and go back to their peculiar way of seeing words. Every language has a peculiar set of sounds and their communication revolves around these many sounds. We try to over-look close variants and prefer to stick to what we are familiar with.
Whenever somebody sees or hears a new word or after a long time they apply their phonological skills. Phonological skills are relative, whereas lexical skills are memory based. It's very difficult to remember every other sound form and visual form simultaneously.
Moreover, when it comes to the lexical application they might say or write something, which they never intended under the influence of much easy resort, relative phonological skills.
Therefore, they rely on a comparatively easy tool by referring to the words already part of their vocabulary. It is much easy to be lexically strong if we know the phonological arrangement of letters and stick to a standard form.
Visit www.ordanywhere.com, you'll have a slight idea of what is this all about.
What can we do to avoid this?
We can’t expect every other speaker to do his share of research separately before deciding to use a word. The fact is that nobody has even time for this.
It's true; and if we try to educate by other means, either they'll not remember it or stick to it with the prevalent ignorance.
Incorporation of a universal accepted logically consistent spelling system and the awareness of the same is the answer. It reminds me of an article in TOI by Arun Bhatia, “Angrezi Boli’. With which the author tried to bring to notice that how he learned of different variants of English words both in script and in sound form.
He tried to tell how people see ‘Reddy’ in written form ‘radiator’.
If we have a universal spelling system for English and we’ll all know how to arrange letter to get the right sound value, easily understandable by everybody, it would be a lot more easy to ascertain sound to script relationship; to ascertain sound value attached to a specific order of arrangement of letter.

Language acquisition is no puberty.

Chomsky introduced the distinction between competence and performance. Chomsky’s model primarily center around the existence of innate knowledge of specifically native speakers. This innate knowledge of complex grammar rules enables a native speaker to generate all possible grammatical sentences; and performance is the way in which she uses the language in reality. Per Chomsky, performance is the trasformation of competence in to every day speech. A distinction was used to describe what a native speaker knows and what she exhibits of her innate knowledge.Chomsky’s a priori presumptions:Heridity gives you the competence and predisposes a native speaker to know language rules much before she start to learn the language. Native speakers naturally encode native language; it’s in their genes. Speakers would know the application of grammar without been taught. The knowledge of so called universal grammar is innate. Speech organs develop differently as different languages.So this implies that we are gentically programed for a particular language and different regions are programed to speak in a particular way. There are different ways English is spoken worldwide. Are we all separately adapted to a particular way before birth? Quoted that if a child is grown up in Tokyo would be talking perfect Japanese ’cause she is genetically identical to kids that grow up in Tokyo. You tell me, what genetics has to do when we are born already. Growing up in a different environment or to adapt encompasses cognitive learnings and development. It has nothing to do with genetic science.Chomsky’s claims are based on assumptions. It’s true that we have genetically adapted ourselves; but not for a particular language. We have adapted to communicate, to speak. Heridity does not play any role in the learning of a particular language, is limited to the development of speech organs and speech processing areas in our mind. Development of mind and speech organ has got nothing to do with the learnings of a specific language. To speak a particular language is not a natural process, to produce sounds is; and even the production of sounds is performance based (learn as we go). A child beginning to speak would try to immitate sounds heard; she may not be able to produce the right sound intially, she eventually learns it with practice. Chomsky attempted to separate language acquisition from psychology. There is much more to language than just generative grammar; grammar is very small area of a much bigger phenomenon. However, psychologists and neurologists argue of any evidence of innate linguistic knowledge at early age. If children were born with innate knowledge of grammar, then why do they take 1-2 years to begin to speak? Two years is good enough time for anyone who know grammar to learn a language. Chomsky’s structural postulates can be completely ruled out as a child does not even know what constitute the structure at early stage of learning. Children have ideas, feelings, needs, etc, and they only need a medium to convey. At early age they do not know of so called universal grammar; they slowly manage to learn words and the meaning attached. Try to ask a 6 months old to give you her favorite toy without making any gestures. There is every possibility that she might not give it to you. There is every chance that she may misconstrue you as saying ‘play as long as you wish’. For the first 6-7 months a kid wouldn’t have much control over sound production; smile when happy and cry if sad, not more than that. Slowly she learns to alter the cries depending upon the intensity of need and start to use voice to show happiness. She wants to imitate but can’t as she doesn’t have control over her cords and also can’t differentiate much between what she hear. She realizes the importance of communication right in time. Beginning with a few content words she slowly attach as much information as she can; the way we do it, joy, etc., and try to remember those words.The idea of learning phases is also fallacious. If you ask Chomsky, he would take no time to relate it to puberty or binocular vision. Learning mainly depends on factors like need, interests, etc. There is no age to learning; individual performance may vary though. Halliday’s functional linguistics could be considered to be on the lines of purpose/need approach. A child would screech on seeing an object. She may not know what to do with it, mere curiosity to observe induces her to cry for it, giving us indications. And thats the only reason for the higher learning abilities of children. She is attracted to so many things, almost everything. Whereas an adult looses interest in those things with time. Language acquisition depends on the exposure and the very purpose of knowing a language. There are many adults settled in different regions from their native language region to a second language regions. Out of which a major percentage claims to know the spoken or written second language, claims to understand the spoken language in particular. But when they speak, the so called universal grammer is absent. This could look like a supportive statement to Chomsky’s theory; but the obverse of which indicates at a more meaningful description of the learning needs of those second language speakers. Their second language prowess is restricted to target words, mostly content words. There is a school of thoughts who believe that adult learner’s biological timetable stymies her second language acquisition. Whereas linguists like Catherine Snow and Marian Hoefnagel-Hohle contradicts such claims, except on pronunciation abilities. If adult learners are considered to have better developed abilities to achieve an analytical understanding of a new language, then why can’t they learn pronunciation as well? Adult learner can learn pronunciation as well, if we exactly know how to teach. I don’t see anything except phsycological variables like anxiety, motivation and self-confidence that can inhibit the second language acquisition, if we have the right training methodology.