#2

One of the things that truly caught my eye while reading Chapter Three was Chomsky's argument that "the acquisition of vocabulary has become much more important...because lexical items are thought to include rich spefication of properties that are needed for parameter setting and other features of grammar, as well as for interpretation of semantic meaning" (Saville-Troike 49). I believe in his argument because learning vocabulary in Japanese not only helps me learn the Japanese equivalent for English words, it also helps me understand the intricacies of Japanese grammar as well. For example, knowing the word "ikimasu" not only means knowing it is a verb "go," it also means that it only accepts the post-particle "e" because it is a motion verb (e.g. "shokudou e ikimasu" ~go to the cafeteria). Another example is knowing the vocabulary of adjectives. For example, I know that adjectives that end in -i are adjectives that describe inanimate things while adjectives that end in -na are adjectives that describe animate things.

In reading How Languages are Learned, one of the concepts that I've come across was Krashen's affective filter hypothesis. He used the term, affective filter, as the "metaphorical barrier that prevents learners from acquiring language even when appropriate input is available" (Spada 37). This has some validity towards my learning Japanese because I find myself understanding the concept learned in class better when I'm at home compared to when I'm actually in class. Sometimes, the professor would expect the students to know the difference between the "ni" particle and the "ga" particle in .25 seconds. That feeling of being rushed would just prevent me from learning and I'd just draw out that proverbial whaaa?? The difference would then occur to me after I've reviewed my notes at home without the pressure of knowing the answer right away.