• Author / Uploaded
• rafaelraspanti

Citation preview

Unit 3

NEUROLINGUISTIC RESEARCH AND FOREIGN LANGUAGE TEACHING

1. Introduction 2. Practical Assignment 3 3. Readings

UNIT 3 NEUROLINGUISTIC RESEARCH AND FOREIGN LANGUAGE TEACHING

INTRODUCTION

Good foreign language teachers have long had really good intuition about how to teach foreign languages, and they have already been doing it successfully for decades before the birth of neuroeducation. Now we can show from neurocognitive evidence why they have doing it the right way. They have intuitively already found the way to do it well, for example, by using constant repetition –drills–, giving students frames in which you substitute words, applying real-life contexts… all these things make the learning process easier in the brain, but teachers already know that.

More and more evidence shows that it is easier for younger brains, which have greater plasticity, and therefore it’s easier for them to make new connections and to strengthen existing connections. Yet, people already knew that the earlier you start instruction in a foreign language, the easier it will be for a child to learn the language. Some of the insights from neurolinguistics have already been picked up by language teachers from other sources –sometimes, just from their experience.

However, confirming past knowledge is not the only thing that neuroeducation can offer to educational researchers. Brain research can also show the weak points of traditional teaching methodologies and techniques, while suggesting new ways to remedy such long-existing shortcomings. Yvonne Kane1 has written an article pointing in this direction. Below is an excerpt from it.

1

This excerpt was taken from the article found at: http://www.examiner.com/article/jhu-neuroeducationtranslates-brain-research-into-practical-teaching.

1

Brain research and education go hand and hand. The field of neuroeducation connects the neuroscientist who studies brain research with the educator who hopes to use research to improve teaching techniques. Neuroeducation is the place where scientific research translates into teaching practicality. An educator’s understanding of how the brain operates while learning is extremely important to the field of education. In the past, research concluded that with the exceptions of old age, brain damage or disease the brain was not able to change after birth. Neuroscientists today understand the brain has the ability to change and grow over time with experiences, repetition, and practice. The brain is even able to create new cells in certain regions. This is described as “plasticity”. This is a profound discovery for the educator because it eliminates the idea that a child that is labeled “Special Ed” will have a life sentence. Instead, a new teaching method may be the key that sets them free. The teacher that has an understanding of plasticity will not categorize student learning capacity, but has a wider view of the learner. This educator will change the child’s experiences, and knows that with practice or remedial lessons it is possible for the child to get a fuller understanding of the concept.

According to Mariale Hardiman, Ed.D., and Martha Bridge Denckla, M.D. in their article The Science of Education,“Findings suggest that ADHD symptoms may represent developmental delay rather than damage in the brain, and that any neural circuitry with such protracted development may be exquisitely sensitive to environmental and experiential influences, which may even alter brain structures.” Teachers who are aware of these findings may change the climate of their classroom. For instance, some ADHD students may not function well in a classroom environment where visual aids are all consuming. In addition, these students may be kinesthetic learners, meaning they have a fuller learning experience when they are given the opportunity to physically carry out the activity rather than listening to a lecture.

Children benefit when teachers are educated in the field of brain research. It changes the educator’s perspective of the learner, and stresses the demand for new teaching methods.

However helpful brain research is, it is useless on its own. What it can do is empower teachers to do their job better. There is a very interesting experiment that was done by Susan Ervin at the University of California, Berkeley. They decided to test different methods of language teaching. They used three different methods, and they had several different language teachers –some were graduate students in linguistics. The teachers

2

had to teach different groups for a period of about eight to twelve weeks, using these different methods. At the end of the experiment, the researchers found that the teaching methods made no significant difference in the students’ results, but when they correlated the results with the teachers, they found that good teachers were getting good results no matter which method they used. It was the teacher who made the difference.

This unit is intended to have you reflect on the potential applications of neuroeducation and neurolinguistics to foreign language teaching. You will have a chance to critically analyze some concrete pedagogical recommendations and rely on your previous readings to formulate some of your own. Your goal is to be able to complete Practical Assignment 3 (see below). Make sure you read the questions in it before you start reading the materials, so as to know what to focus on.

It is recommended that you read the materials in the following order: Dickinson, Dee (2000). “Questions to Neuroscientists from Educators”. Online at: http://education.jhu.edu/newhorizons/Neurosciences/articles/Questions%20to%20Neuroscientist s%20from%20Educators/index.html. Last access: 06/09/2012. [2] Scovel, Thomas (1982). “Questions Concerning the Application of Neurolinguistic Research to Second Language Learning/Teaching”. TESOL Quarterly 16(3), 323-331. [3] Lamendella, John T. (1979). “The Neurofunctional Basis of Pattern Practice”. TESOL Quarterly 13(1), 5-19. [4] Paradis, Michel (2009b). “Ultimate attainment in L2 proficiency”. Chapter 4 of Declarative and Procedural Determinants of Second Languages, 110-136. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. [5] Kuhl, Patricia K. (2010). “Brain Mechanisms in Early Language Acquisition”. Neuron 67, 713-727. [6] Ullman, Michael T. (2005). “A Cognitive Neuroscience Perspective on Second Language Acquisition: The Declarative/Procedural Model”. In C. Sanz (ed.), Mind and Context in Adult Second Language Acquisition: Methods, Theory, and Practice, 141-178. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. [7] Netten, Joan and Claude Germain (2012). “A new paradigm for the learning of a second or foreign language: The neurolinguistic approach”. Neuroeducation 1(1), 85-114. [1]

If you feel you need more information on neuroanatomy or neuroimaging techniques, you may read the following texts included in the Appendix Lamb, Sydney (2011). “El cerebro humano”. Chapter 16 of Senderos del cerebro: La base neurocognitiva del lenguaje (translated by José María Gil and Adolfo Martín García). Mar del Plata: EUDEM. Rodden, Frank A. and Stemmer, Brigitte (2008). “A Brief Introduction to Common Neuroimaging Techniques”. In Brigitte Stemmer and Harry A. Whitaker (eds), Handbook of the Neuroscience of Language, 57-67. London: Elsevier.

Feel free to work in groups if you find it beneficial. Good luck!

3

PRACTICAL ASSIGNMENT 3 On the basis of the readings assigned for Unit 3, do the following activities.

PA3: ACTIVITY 1 Scovel (1982) raises serious questions about the pedagogical relevance of neurolinguistic research. On the other hand, Lamendella (1979) uses neuroscientific data to reflect upon the limitations of pattern-practice drills in the L2 class. In your opinion, do Scovel’s arguments invalidate Lamendella’s reasoning, or does Lamdendella’s paper show the inaccuracy of Scovel’s criticism? State your answer IN NO MORE THAN 600 WORDS.

Cortical stimulation, introduced in the 1950s, may be considered one of the earlier brainimaging techniques in that investigators are able to employ it to map a patient’s language area. This technique is used primarily for patients who are preparing to undergo surgery for intractable epilepsy, in order to determine the brain regions involved in speech and other cortical functions. Since the brain has no pain receptors, the patient remains conscious as the surgeon opens the cranium and electrically stimulates areas of the cortex. Small voltages applied to the language area have typically caused patients to become temporarily incapable of naming items. Cortical stimulation, introduced in the 1950s, may be considered one of the earlier brainimaging techniques in that investigators are able to employ it to map a patient’s language

area. This technique is used primarily for patients who are preparing to undergo surgery for intractable epilepsy, in order to determine the brain regions involved in speech and other cortical functions. Since the brain has no pain receptors, the patient remains conscious as the surgeon opens the cranium and electrically stimulates areas of the cortex. Small voltages applied to the language area have typically caused patients to become temporarily incapable of naming items. Cortical stimulation, introduced in the 1950s, may be considered one of the earlier brainimaging techniques in that investigators are able to employ it to map a patient’s language area. This technique is used primarily for patients who are preparing to undergo surgery for intractable epilepsy, in order to determine the brain regions involved in speech and other cortical functions. Since the brain has no pain receptors, the patient remains conscious as the surgeon opens the cranium and electrically stimulates areas of the cortex. Small vol

4

PA3: ACTIVITY 2 Choose ONE, AND ONLY ONE, of the following texts:

(a)

“Ultimate attainment in L2 proficiency” (Paradis, 2009b).

(b) “Brain Mechanisms in Early Language Acquisition” (Kuhl, 2010). (c)

“A Cognitive Neuroscience Perspective on Second Language Acquisition: The Declarative/Procedural Model” (Ullman, 2005).

Now, analyze it thoroughly and complete the following table:

TEXT CHOSEN

RESEARCH TOPIC ADDRESSED

MAIN HYPOTHESES

SOURCE(S) OF EVIDENCE CONSIDERED

MAIN CONCLUSION(S)

PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS FOR THE L2 CLASSROOM (THESE ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE TEXTS; YOU MUST PROPOSE AND ELABORATE THEM YOURSELF)

5

PA3: ACTIVITY 3 Based on their appraisal of foreign language teaching in the Canadian school system, Netten and Germain (2012) propose and characterize five principles of the neurolinguistic approach (NLA) to second-language learning. Consider your experience as a student, teacher, and/or parent in Argentina and answer the following question IN NO MORE THAN 600 WORDS: Are those principles applicable to the current educational scenario in our country?

Cortical stimulation, introduced in the 1950s, may be considered one of the earlier brainimaging techniques in that investigators are able to employ it to map a patient’s language area. This technique is used primarily for patients who are preparing to undergo surgery for intractable epilepsy, in order to determine the brain regions involved in speech and other cortical functions. Since the brain has no pain receptors, the patient remains conscious as the surgeon opens the cranium and electrically stimulates areas of the cortex. Small voltages applied to the language area have typically caused patients to become temporarily incapable of naming items. Cortical stimulation, introduced in the 1950s, may be considered one of the earlier brainimaging techniques in that investigators are able to employ it to map a patient’s language

area. This technique is used primarily for patients who are preparing to undergo surgery for intractable epilepsy, in order to determine the brain regions involved in speech and other cortical functions. Since the brain has no pain receptors, the patient remains conscious as the surgeon opens the cranium and electrically stimulates areas of the cortex. Small voltages applied to the language area have typically caused patients to become temporarily incapable of naming items. Cortical stimulation, introduced in the 1950s, may be considered one of the earlier brainimaging techniques in that investigators are able to employ it to map a patient’s language area. This technique is used primarily for patients who are preparing to undergo surgery for intractable epilepsy, in order to determine the brain regions involved in speech and other cortical functions. Since the brain has no pain receptors, the patient remains conscious as the surgeon opens the cranium and electrically stimulates areas of the cortex. Small vol

6

QUESTIONS TO NEUROSCIENTISTS FROM EDUCATORS

Questions to Neuroscientists from Educators Prepared for the Krasnough Institute, George Mason University by Dee Dickinson

Never has there been a time of greater challenge for education, and never has there been such an opportunity to rethink the whole process. Educators, parents, business people, and other members of the community are asking fundamental questions such as, What do students need to know and be able to do when they graduate? What are the essential academic learning requirements for today and tomorrow? What kinds of environments, curriculum, and educational strategies are appropriate to prepare students for a future that can hardly be imagined? How do we reach and teach students from different cultural, social, economic, and educational backgrounds--and who have, as a result, very different ways of learning? How can we help students to master basic skills and information, develop understanding and knowledge, and learn to apply what they have learned in contexts outside the classroom? How can we help them to develop the flexible minds and higher order thinking skills to live in our rapidly changing world? Although brain research has been contributing valuable information related to learning since the pioneering work of Broca in the 1800's, it wasn't until the 1970's that many educators began to see applications to their work. The earlier pioneering split-brain research of Sperry and Bogan offered new insights into individual differences in learning. Many educators found in these studies validation for what they had always intuitively felt about using different kinds of teaching and learning strategies to reach different kinds of learners. Very soon, however, in educational circles brain research became equated with left brain/right brain theory, and the interpretation and practice went far beyond what the original research indicated. Few consultants or educators worked directly with neuroscientists on how this information might best be applied. Brain research so far, as previously noted, has most often been used by educators to make a case for what they would like to do or are already doing. It is high time for educators to ask neuroscientists for information that can help them to better understand their students and the learning process. The Krasnow Institute is offering a wonderful opportunity to do so. We desperately need guidance in meeting many new kinds of challenges, and need to make sure we do not misinterpret the findings or apply them inappropriately. It would also be helpful if neuroscientists in partnership with teachers could observe firsthand how their the results of their studies affect educational planning and practice. Although help regarding pressing problems must clearly come from many different sources, what guidance do you think brain research may offer brain in regard to the following specific challenges? 1

1. Much information is now available about the plasticity of the human brain and the modifiability of intelligence, but traditional I.Q. testing is still rampant. We need new ways of assessing both potential and learning achievement. If brain/mind research suggests that "everyone can learn" then we need to understand how to create environments and use strategies and tools that make this possible. What clues does brain research offer to assess potential more effectively? Is "evoked potential" through the use of new technologies a useful tool for educators? What are the most important factors to consider in developing the fullest possible potential of students? 2. There is currently a great deal of controversy over different educational philosophies such as direct instruction, which involves much drill and practice with the teacher and textbooks as primary sources of knowledge, and constructivist learning, which engages the students in actively seeking out and discovering knowledge from many different sources with the teacher as learning facilitator. Cross cultural studies are also being done on these different approaches. What can brain studies show us about the difference between students in settings focused on listening, reading, and drill and those who are more actively engaged in multisensory, constructivist learning? Are there brain studies of both approaches that show structural and functional change over time? What parts of the brain are most actively involved in the different approaches? Can a case be made for both methods used for different purposes in an appropriate balance? 3. In most school systems today there is a push for higher standards, but there is not always an accompanying effort to equip both students and teachers with the skills to meet them. What effect does this have on the human brain, especially in regard to emotion and cognition? What recommendations would you make to school districts regarding the scaffolding of learning? From a neurological perspective, what are the most important tools and strategies to help students succeed at learning? 4. In 1990 the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) guaranteed that children receiving special education will receive "free and appropriate public education" in the "least restrictive environment." The law was created to ensure that children have unimpeded and supported opportunities to participate in activities and belong in peer groups and still receive the individualized attention they need to acquire developmental skills. At the present time many teachers in regular classrooms do not have the skills or training to deal with the challenges presented by some of these disabled students, and they do not have access to the support services they need. Many special education teachers as well need new understandings and new skills. What are the most important brain studies underway regarding Learning Disabled, Behaviorally Disabled, and Attentional Deficit Disordered students? Can we utilize that information to scaffold their learning through their existing 2

strengths? What are the long-range effects of medications such as Ritalin and Prozac? Are there appropriate alternatives? What about the use of biofeedback? What is the current research on the effects of chemical food additives and pollutants in connection with learning problems? As the new IDEA guidelines take effect, what help can neuroscientists offer teachers in terms of realistic expectations for their students and the means to help them meet these expectations? 5. There are now numbers of elementary age children who were born of mothers abusing drugs, nicotine, and alcohol. There is also the well known problem that kids are abusing these substances, even at the elementary level. Many of these children do not respond to traditional educational methods and teachers are desperate for information that will help them and their students. What does research on these children indicate about why they do not respond to many traditional methods? Can brain studies give educators some clues about helping them to learn? In addition to "just saying no," from a neurological perspective what are the most effective ways to deter children and potential parents from substance abuse? 6. Today many children are spending inordinate amounts of their free time watching television or playing computer games--frequently five or six hours a day. Teachers are observing the negative effects on their cognitive, physical, and emotional development, as well as their interpersonal skills. Do brain studies suggest a link between the massive use of multimedia technology and short attention spans and inability to focus attention? What happens in the brain when conversation is limited, and when much time is spent in passive, silent viewing? What effect do you think the new television programs for babies will have on their development? What are the implications for the appropriate use of these powerful tools? 7. Violent behavior in schools is a growing problem. Clearly there are many reasons among which are environmental and social factors, but evidence is piling up that watching violent TV programs may cause violent behavior in students who are unstable or already prone to violence. What happens chemically and functionally in various parts of the brain during the watching of violent films, playing of violent computer games, and interacting with violent websites? What are some of the reasons that the brain becomes addicted to these technologies? How best should this information be communicated to parents, teachers, and students? How can the creators and producers of these technologies be convinced to take responsibility for the effects of their products? 8. In a recent article by Robert Sternberg, Yale psychologist, he points out that the average intelligence of each generation is rising, not only as measured by I.Q. tests, but also by observing behavior. He suggests that one explanation may lie in the tools we use, especially new technologies.

3

Are there ways to assess improved brain function and higher order thinking skills as a result of using intellectually challenging technologies in appropriate ways? (For example using the Internet or playing Tetris, Lego Logo, or Sierra's Dr. Brain games.) Are there any studies that show ongoing improvement over time? Is there yet a consensus on appropriate age levels and amounts of time for use? 9. At Children's Hospital in Tokyo, Virtual Reality is being used to scaffold the learning of developmentally delayed or disabled children. VR is already being used successfully with adults in such areas as training of airline pilots, space travelers, surgeons, and mechanics. It is still costly, but as the costs of technology come down possibilities may appear for use in schools, for example in performing lab experiments that might require expensive equipment or that might be dangerous. What is the role of virtual reality in education for better or for worse? How does the brain respond differently to real and virtual experiences? Is it important to suggest guidelines soon before they are being used in schools? 10. Drs. Henrietta and Alan Leiner have produced interesting research on the cerebellum through using MRIs Their work reveals unexpected and widespread connections from the cerebellum to the prefrontal cortex and limbic system. Their research shows that it can perform not only motor but also mental functions and timing functions. They say that "to the extent that an individual can learn to perform some mental skills without conscious attention, the conscious part of the brain is freed to attend to other mental activities, thus enlarging its cognitive scope. How the cerebellum contributes to this cognitive advantage is well worth investigating, particularly because this may help to clarify how language was able to evolve in our species." What are the implications of these studies for the development of basic skills and for second language acquisition, which is of growing importance in our schools? Are there neurological studies that show that skill and practice are more successful when tied to emotion and higher order thinking skills? Does this research support the use of accelerative learning techniques, including music, dance, drama, and the graphic arts? Does the Leiners' research explain the neurophysiology of "flow states?" Does it increase our understanding of how to improve not only skill memory but verbal and visual memory? Does it explain the capacity of the brain to do multitasking activities? What is consciousness, and what are the brain mechanisms that are used in memorizing, thinking, problem-solving, imagining, creating, and inventing using words, numbers, images, and physical activity? 11. There has been a great deal of emphasis on the prenatal and early childhood periods of brain development, including "windows of opportunity." There is much information now available through all the media for parents and teachers on the effects of nutrition and how to create environments that are positive, stimulating, and nurturing for the young child. Less information is available regarding the dramatic changes that occur in adolescence. Some years ago Herman Epstein studied brain-growth spurts and plateau periods. He 4

suggested that periods of rapid brain growth are the times for intellectually challenging curriculum, and that plateau periods, such as in adolescence, are the times for more concrete, experiential learning rather than pushing students too soon into abstract thinking. Although the studies lost favor because of his research methods, most middle school teachers recognized in their students the characteristics he described. Also in some cases, the studies were inappropriately applied by watering down the curriculum and lowering expectations with poor results and many protests from parents. With the current crises in many junior high and middle schools, is this the time to revisit studies of the adolescent brain using the new technologies that are now available? What are some implications for helping adolescents to learn effectively during this stressful and confusing period? What role does emotion play in their behavior? What does new research tell us about changes in the biological clock and physical needs for more sleep? How can these studies be used appropriately in educational planning and practice? 12. In the last few years newspapers, magazines, television, and radio have announced the latest information about the brain in piecemeal fashion. Numbers of new books, however, have been attempting to integrate some of this information and discuss its relevance to education. Unfortunately, many schools of education and staff development programs are not keeping up with research from the neurosciences, discussing the implications of new information, and sharing it with their students. What is the most effective way to generate principles to apply to education, and communicate these even more broadly? Is there now an opportunity for medical schools and university science and education departments to collaborate more effectively with each other and with k-12 educators? Given what you know about the human brain, how would you redesign our educational systems? Copyright © 2000

5

NEUROLINGUISTICS AND SLA (SCOVEL)

Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL)

Questions concerning the Application of Neurolinguistic Research to Second Language Learning/Teaching Author(s): Thomas Scovel Source: TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 16, No. 3 (Sep., 1982), pp. 323-331 Published by: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL) Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3586632 Accessed: 07/07/2009 22:29 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=tesol. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL) is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to TESOL Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

TESOLQUARTERLY Vol. 16, No. 3 September 1982

QuestionsConcerningthe Applicationof NeurolinguisticResearchto SecondLanguage Learning/Teaching Thomas Scovel My two colleagues, Genesee and Seliger, have done an admirable job summarizing the ever-growing neurolinguistic research of second language acquisition and have described the neuroanatomical, experimental, and clinical evidence for the ways in which the brain is related to language comprehension and production, especially in bilinguals. They have focused in particular on the role of the right hemisphere (RH), a relatively new interest in neurolinguistics. If I understand their viewpoints correctly, they are telling us that we should approach neurolinguistic research with care and that we should be as prudent as possible in our attempts to apply the findings from the field of brain research to our daily classroom situations as language teachers. This circumspect approach is well justified, but it is certainly not novel. We have surveyeda field in the throesof almostfreneticexperimental activity. Developmenthas been so rapidthat there has been little time for stock-taking. There are so many thingsto do, so manyfacts to gather,so manyexperiments to be confirmedor which requireadditionalcontrolsthat, for the moment,it it seems wiser to be wary of far-reachingconclusions.Much more has been discoveredof what has to be learnedthan has emergedas firmlyestablished knowledge.Although'listeningin' on the activity of single nerve cells has providedsome fascinatingglimpsesinto neural interaction,the mechanismof thatinteractionstill strangelyevadesdetection.(Morrell1961:483) These apprehensions were voiced over two decades ago, but the plea for caution and stock-taking are as relevant for the eighties as they were for the sixties. It is in the same spirit that I will attempt to express my concerns about the applications of neurolinguistic research to second language learning and teaching, by citing some recent studies which encourage the possibility of overextrapolation by language teachers. Then I would like to raise four questions about brain research and its application to second language pedagogy. In brief, I am highly critical of any direct application of neurolinguistic research to foreign language teaching, just as applied linguists of a generation ago were correctly suspicious of direct applications of the then comparatively new science of linguistics to second language instruction (Bolinger 1972, Krohn 1971). It is not necessary to employ either linguistic models or neurolinguistic research to justify 323

324

TESOL Quarterly

good pedagogy or to condemn inadequate classroom practices; rather, the contribution of neuropsychology, like that of linguistics, should be indirect and insightful. Unfortunately, this has not been the popular view. An unhappy marriage of single-minded neuropsychologists and doubleminded educationalists has already given birth to a spate of articles, books, and lecture tours which have received wide media attention over the past several years. A random list of sources that have fallen into my hands recently is representative of these viewpoints: 1) a newspaper story about a California educator who visited Pittsburgh to tell 350 principals, school board members, and teachers that, among other things, "In school, we teach more to the left brain and that is why some children fail, because they learn more with the right;" 2) an article in Science magazine describing Tsunoda's work on "the Japanese brain" which claims that "the language we learn alters the physical operation of our brains" and that the Japanese do much more left hemisphere (LH) processing than Westerners because their language is richer in vowels; 3) an abstract for a paper to be read at a national convention in which it is hypothesized that a second language is learned more by the RH and that, consequently, teachers should employ "exercises requiring spatial processing of verbal information coming from the target language," supposedly to enhance this RH superiority; and, 4) a manuscript on evolution, language, and the brain speculates: a) that human language as we know it emerged only 3,000 years ago, b) that it came about as a radical change from right-brained oral language to left-brained written language, and c) that this new LH dominance has given rise to the development of institutionalized religion and dictatorships! Compared to the potpourri I have just cited, the material published in the last few years dealing with neurolinguistics applied to second language learning and teaching is relatively conservative in tone; nevertheless, in light of the wide degree of variance in the neurological literature (some of it reported by Genesee and Seliger), and because of the danger of trying to match biological correlates to psychological functions, a hazard pointed out by Gruber and Segalowitz (1977), I think both language researchers and language teachers must exercise caution in seeking any facile link between the findings reported on by neuropsychologists and what happens, or what we think happens, to our language students in the classroom. For this reason, and for others I am about to enumerate, I view with great concern any pedagogical applications stemming from certain papers which have been presented at recent TESOL conventions on this topic (e.g., Carroll 1978, Gilbert 1980, Wesche and Schneiderman 1980) as well as similar articles which have appeared in print (e.g., Hartnett 1976, Walsh and Diller 1978, Lamendella 1979). Some of these studies are carefully constructed and are wary of easy conclusions, but so great is the enthusiasm of the general public for things scientific that I am afraid

Applications to Teaching

325

teachers and administrators alike will ignore little qualifications like may, might, or in some subjects, and rush headlong into direct classroom applications purportedly tapping LH or RH abilities.1 There are four reasons why I believe that brain research will not provide a quick fix to our teaching problems. I present them here as four questions about the applicability of neurolinguistic research to second language pedagogy. The first question we should ask when trying to apply neurolinguistic and neuropsychological research to the needs of language learners is that of who the subjects of these studies are. In asking this question, we discover that neurolinguists have usually examined either competent bilinguals or, cross-sectionally, second language learners at different stages of acquisition. Unfortunately, there are few if any neurolinguistic studies which have investigated people who are in the process of acquiring a second language using longitudinal measures. When we turn the question around and ask who our students are, it is transparent that language teachers are generally dealing with an entirely different population than researchers because the majority of programs around the world are designed for beginning or intermediate level learners. The mismatch is immediately obvious; the language users reported on in the neurolinguistic literature are, by and large, people who have attained a state of being bilingual, whereas the population that most interests teachers is still in the process of becoming bilingual. Clearly, we have two different psychological stages of cognition, and there is no reason to assume that the numerous neuropsychological studies we have on bilingualism can be automatically transferred to second language instruction about which we have virtually no neuropsychological data. Put succinctly, we know something about how the brain processes linguistic information in bilinguals from both experimental and clinical studies, but we know nothing about how or even if language processing systems of the brain change during the course of learning a second language. Given that at this time we have almost no neurolinguistic data on the process of becoming bilingual, we cannot even begin to speculate about what is happening in the brains of our students. We rest with the hope that something is indeed transpiring, however ephemeral. My second query deals with what specific skills are being reported on. In looking at any neuropsychological study, we should look at the specific behavioral task that the subjects are required to perform. Regardless of the results, whether there is a significant right ear advantage implicating 1I am grateful to the Research Committee of TESOL, which has played a major role in interpreting research findings to the TESOL membership, for having provided a forum on neurolinguistics in order to deal in a responsible way with the weight of new data about the brain that is constantly being reported by neuropsychologists on the one hand, and the natural desire of classroom teachers to discover new answers to old pedagogical questions on the other.

326

TESOL Quarterly

the LH, or a strong left visual field tendency suggesting RH processing, to cite just two examples, an important question is, "What were the subjects required to do?" One of the most dramatic findings to emerge from the past two decades of research on differential lateralization has been the increasing importance of the nature of the experimental task on the results of neurolinguistic investigations. An example of the way in which the behavioral task can determine hemispheric response can be seen in studies of the role of the RH in processing information about human faces. It used to be believed that the type of stimulus, categorized in very general terms, dictated which hemisphere would be better in responding (e.g., a linguistic stimulus should trigger LH responses). Thus, Bogen (1975) claimed that the RH was responsible for "spaces, mazes, and faces." But if we examine the abundant research done on recognizing faces and on prosopagnosia (the failure to recognize faces) in right hemisphere damaged patients, we realize from recent experimental studies that facial recognition is not simply nor solely an RH phenomenon. Berent (1977) and Dekosky et al. (1980) have presented evidence to indicate that in tasks which require brain damaged patients to recognize emotional faces, either the LH damaged subjects performed as poorly as the RH impaired patients, or they did worse. Dekosky et al. (1980) speculate that since linking emotion to faces may require verbal mediation, this particular task, which up to recently has been considered a classic RH test, imposes difficulties for LH damaged subjects as well. Similar irregularities in the processing of faces portraying emotions were found in a study of normals by Strauss and Moscovitch (1981). They discovered no visual field asymmetries in subjects viewing pictures of faces depicting negative emotions. In brief, we can see that something so simple as facial recognition is not so simple after all, and it is not sufficient to look for easy correlations between certain types of stimuli and neuropsychological measures of LH or RH lateralization. It is necessary to ask the additional question, "What specific cognitive task (or tasks) are we asking the brain to perform?" From this perspective it can readily be concluded that we must be very careful when attempting to link global claims about hemispheric lateralization to global measures of human behavior. My third concern deals with where in the brain we are looking for our neuropsychological evidence. The great part of the work in neuropsychology, from the clinical literature of Broca's early work in the nineteenth century to present-day experimental studies, has examined only one neuroanatomical dimension: differential lateralization of either hemisphere. So fascinated have we become with bilateral asymmetry that we have tended to forget that there are two other neuroanatomical dimensions: the up/ down and front/back directions (to use the terminology of human anatomy, the superior/inferior and anterior/posterior contrasts). Although the left/right dichotomy is easy to identify neuroanatomically and is amenable

Applications to Teaching

327

to a wide variety of behavioral and neurophysiological measures, it is somewhat ironic that this dimension has been so intensively studied in humans. In terms of human evolution, embryological development, anatomical, histological and cytochemical differences, and most importantly, in terms of the neurofunctional control of somatic and psychological behavior, by far the most important dimension of the brain is the difference between the top and the bottom-between the cerebral hemispheres, the limbic system, the cerebellum, the midbrain, and the brain stem. The reasons why most research has concentrated on bilateral differences and not on the superior/inferior dimension must reside in the history of neuropsychology and are largely unknown to me, but one neurologist's comments concerning the history of neuropsychological research are particularly germane. Jacobs (1977) concludes with the wry observation that "It must always be remembered that things easy to measure are not necessarily important and those not measurable may be very important" (p. 163). I would submit that one reason we are attracted to left/right dichotomies is that they are more susceptible to measurement than the other two dimensions. One wonders if we are not witnessing a modern form of phrenology. Today, with the advent of even more powerful instruments such as Positron-Emission-Tomography (PET), we are still limited, especially in dealing with the complex relationship between the cortical and subcortical areas of the functioning, normal brain. Jacobs has an observation about instrumentation too. When making use of sophisticated equipment, the researcher should not be misled into believing that he has developed sophisticated answers. More elegant mythologies are no more useful or truthful than simpler mythologies. (Jacobs 1977:163)

Who? What? and Where? lead to the final and most important question, So What? Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that a certain kind of language teaching methodology correlates statistically with a certain pattern of hemispheric processing. Let us further suppose that ESOL students studying with a strict, audiolingual method only employ the temporal lobes of their left hemispheres, but that students who use an eclectic, cognitive code method use all four lobes of both hemispheres. We might call this the pinball machine model of applied neurolinguistics, where different methods score different points depending on how much neuropsychological information is bounced around inside the cranium. In the example just cited, the cognitive code method would, of course, light up the machine! Even if all this were true, and even if we could quantify what happens to the brain of a learner when studying a second language under two supposedly very different methodologies, using cerebral blood flow studies or PET scans, what practical benefits would accrue from such research? Does the quantity of nervous tissue involved in cerebral processing

TESOL Quarterly

328

carry with it any implicit normative evidence? Does quantity imply quality any more in neurology than it does in pedagogy? I think not. This final problem of the pedagogical irrelevance of direct applications of neuropsychological research emphasizes the ultimate futility of any attempts to seek a neurolinguistic reality to justify certain classroom techniques and behaviors. The brain is a fascinating organ, and every year, neurolinguistic research is providing us with deeper and more insightful answers into the classic question of psychology: the relationship between mind and body. I certainly hope that all language teachers will try to remain abreast of some of the major findings that are being discussed in neurolinguistics, especially those results which may offer keener insights into how language learning might be enhanced and accelerated. But I have the equally strong aspiration that language teachers will exercise common sense in seeking help from a wide variety of disciplines and that they will continue to balance the research contributions of these disparate fields with sensible experience and with a sensitive appreciation of the needs and goals of their students. There is no need to resort to neurolinguistic research to justify the importance of these goals of common sense, experience, and sensitivity. REFERENCES Albert, M. and L. Obler. 1978. The bilingual brain. N.Y.: Academic Press. Bellisle, F. 1975. Early bilingualism and cerebral dominance. Unpublished manuscript, McGill University. Berent, S. 1977. Functional asymmetryof the human brain in the recognition of faces. Neuropsychologia 15:829-831.

Berendt, R. S. and A. Caramazza. 1980. A redefinition of the syndrome of Broca's aphasia: Implications for a neuropsychologicalmodel of language. Applied Psycholinguistics 1:225-278.

Bever, T. 1974. The relation of language development to cognitive development. In E. Lenneberg (Ed.), Language and brain: Developmental aspects.

Jamaica Plain, MA: Neurosciences Research Program Bulletin. Bogen, J. E. 1975. Some educational aspects of hemispheric specialization. UCLA Educator 17:24-32.

Bogen, J. E. 1977. Some educational implicationsof hemisphericspecialization. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), The human brain. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. Bolinger, D. 1972. The influence of linguistics: Plus and minus. TESOL Quarterly 6:107-120. Bruner,J. S., J. J. Goodnow, and G. A. Austin. 1956. A study of thinking. N.Y.: John Wiley and Sons. Bryden, M. P. 1978. Strategy effects in the assessment of hemispheric asymmetry. In G. Underwood (Ed.), Strategies of information processing. N.Y.:

Academic Press. Carroll, F. W. 1978. The other side of the brain and adult foreign language learning. Paper presented at the TESOL Convention, Mexico City. Charlton, M. H. 1964. Aphasia in bilingual and polyglot patients: A neurological and psychological study. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders

29:307-311. Dekosky, S., K. Heilman, D. Bowers, and E. Valenstein. 1980. Recognitionand discriminationof emotional faces and pictures. Brain and Language 9:206214.

Applications to Teaching

329

Dennis, M. 1980. Capacity and strategy for syntactic comprehension after left or right hemidecortication. Brain and Language 10:287-317. Dunham, J. L., J. P. Guilford, and R. Hoepfner. 1968. Multivariate approaches to discovering the intellectual components of concept learning. Psychological Review 75:206-221. Galloway, L. 1979. The cerebral organization of language in bilinguals and second language learners: Clinical and experimental evidence. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, University of California at Los Angeles. Gazzinga, M. S. 1970. The bisected brain. N.Y.: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Genesee, F. 1980. Bilingual brains? Paper presented at the Symposium on Neurolinguistics and Bilingualism: The Question of Individual Differences. Albuquerque, N.M. Genesee, F., J. Hamers, W. E. Lambert, L. Mononen, M. Seitz, and R. Starck. 1978. Language processing in bilinguals. Brain and Language 5:1-12. Gilbert, J. 1980. Classroom techniques based on right and left brain differences. Paper presented at the TESOL Convention, San Francisco. Gordon, H. W. 1980. Cerebral organization in bilinguals: I. Lateralization. Brain and Language 9:255-268. Gordon, H. W. and J. E. Bogen. 1974. Hemispheric lateralization of singing after intracarotid sodium amylobarbitone. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry 37:727-738. Gruber, F. and S. Segalowitz. 1977. Some issues and methods in the neuropsychology of language. In S. Segalowitz and F. Gruber (Eds.), Language development and neurological theory. N.Y.: Academic Press. Hamers, J. F. and W. E. Lambert. 1977. Visual field and cerebral hemisphere preference in bilinguals. In S. Segalowitz and F. Gruber, (Eds.), Language development and neurological theory. N.Y.: Academic Press. Hardyck, C., O. J-L. Tzeng, and W. S-Y. Wang. 1978. Cerebral lateralization of function and bilingual decision processes: Is thinking lateralized? Brain and Language 5:56-71. Hartnett, D. 1976. The relation of cognitive style and hemispheric preference to deductive and inductive second language learning. Conference on Cerebral Dominance-UCLA, BIS Report No. 42. Jacobs, J. 1977. An external view of neuropsychology and its working milieu. In S. Segalowitz and F. Gruber (Eds.), Language development and neurological theory. N.Y.: Academic Press. Jaffe, J. 1976. Parliamentary procedure and the brain. In A. W. Seigman and S. Feldstein (Eds.), Nonverbal behavior and communication. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum. Kershner, J. and A. G-R. Jeng. 1972. Dual functional asymmetry in visual perception: Effects of ocular dominance and post exposural processes. Neuropsychologia 10:437-445. Kimura, D. 1973. The asymmetry of the human brain. Scientific American 228:70-78. Kinsbourne, M. 1975. Minor hemisphere language and cerebral maturation. In E. Lenneberg and E. Lenneberg (Eds.), Foundations of language development. Vol. 2. N.Y.: Academic Press. Kinsbourne, M. 1980. A model for the ontogeny of cerebral organization in non-right handers. In J. Herron (Ed.), Neuropsychology of left-handedness. N.Y.: Academic Press. Kotik, B. 1975. Investigation of speech lateralization in multilinguals. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Moscow State University. Krashen, S. D. 1977. The monitor model for adult second language performance. In M. Burt, H. Dulay and M. Finocchiaro (Eds.), Viewpoints on English as a second language. N.Y.: Regents. Krashen, S. D. and L. Galloway. 1978. The neurological correlates of language acquisition: Current research. SPEAQ Journal 2:21-35. Krohn, R. 1971. The role of linguistics in TESL methodology. English Teaching Forum 9:2-4.

330

TESOL Quarterly

Lamendella, J. 1977. General principles of neurofunctionalorganization and their manifestationin primary and nonprimarylanguage acquisition. Language Learning27:155-196. Lamendella, J. 1979. The neurofunctionalbasis of pattern practice. TESOL Quarterly13:5-19. l'Hermitte, R., H. Hecaen, J. Dubois, A. Culioli, and A. Tabourret-Kelly. 1966. Le probleme de l'aphasie des polyglottes: Remarquessur quelques observations. Neuropsychologia4:315-329. Maitre, S. 1974. On the representationof second languages in the brain. M.A. Thesis, Universityof Californiaat Los Angeles. Medin, D. and M. Cole. 1975. Comparativepsychology and human cognition. In W. K. Estes (Ed.), Handbook of learning and cognitive processes. Vol. 1. Molfese, D. L. and V. J. Molfese. 1979. Hemisphere and stimulus differences as reflected in the cortical responses of newborn infants to speech stimuli. DevelopmentalPsychology15:505-511. Morrell, F. 1961. Electrophysiological contributions to the neural basis of learning. Physiological Reviews 41:443-494. Nair, K. R. and V. Virmani. 1973. Speech and language disturbancesin hemiplegics. Indian Journal of Medical Research 61:1395-1403. Obler, L., M. Albert, and H. Gordon. 1975. Assymetry of cerebral dominance in Hebrew-Englishbilinguals. Paper presented at 13th annual meeting of the Academy of Aphasia, Victoria, B.C. Paradis, M. 1977. Bilingualismand aphasia. In H. Whitakerand H. Whitaker (Eds.), Studies in neurolinguistics.Vol. 3. N.Y.: Academic Press. Piazza, D. and R. Zatorre. 1981. Right ear advantage for dichotic listening in bilingual children. Brain and Language 13:389-396. Seliger, H. W. 1980. Strategy and tactic in second language acquisition. Paper presented at the UCLA Second Language Research Forum. (To appear in K. M. Bailey et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the third L.A. second language research forum. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.) Seliger, H. W. 1981. Exceptions to critical period predictions: A sinister plot. In R. Andersen (Ed.), New dimensions in second language acquisition research. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Silverberg,R., S. Bentin, T. Gaziel, L. K. Obler, and M. L. Albert. 1979. Shift of visual field preference for English words in native Hebrew speakers. Brain and Language 8:184-190. Soares, C. and F. Grosjean. 1979. Language dominance in Portuguese-English late bilinguals. Paper presented at Symposiumon Spanish and Portuguese Bilingualism,Amherst,MA. Starck, R., F. Genesee, W. E. Lambert, and M. Seitz. 1977. Multiple language experience and the development of cerebral dominance. In S. J. Segalowitz and F. A. Gruber (Eds.), Language development and neurologicaltheory. N.Y.: Academic Press. Strauss, E. and M. Moscovitch. 1981. Perception of facial expressions. Brain and Language 13:308-332. Sussman, H., P. Franklin,and T. Simon. 1980. Bilingual speech: Bilateral control. Unpublished manuscript,University of Texas. Vaid, J. and F. Genesee. 1980. Neuropsychologicalapproachesto bilingualism: A critical review. 1980. CanadianJournalof Psychology 34:419-447. Vaid, J. and W. E. Lambert. 1979. Differentialcerebralinvolvementin the cognitive functioning of bilinguals. Brain and Language 8:92-110. Vygotsky, L. S. 1972. Thought and language. Cambridge: M.I.T. Press. Walsh, T. and K. Diller. 1978. Neurolinguisticfoundationsto methods of teaching a second language. IRAL 15:1-14. Weinreich, U. 1953. Languages in contact. N.Y.: Linguistic Circle of New York.

Applications to Teaching

331

Wesche, B. and E. Schneiderman. 1980. Cognitive strategies and differential lateralizationof the bilingual's languages. Paper presented at the TESOL Convention,San Francisco. Whitaker, H. A. 1978. Bilingualism: A neurolinguisticperspective. In W. C. Ritchie (Ed.), Second language acquisition research: Issues and implications. N.Y.: Academic Press. Witelson, S. F. 1977. Early hemisphere specialization and inter-hemisphere plasticity: An empirical and theoretical review. In S. Segalowitz and F. A. Gruber (Eds.), Language development and neurologicaltheory. N.Y.: Academic Press. Zangwill, O. L. 1967. Speech and the minor hemisphere. Acta Neurologica et PsychiatricaBelgica, 1013-1020.

THE NEUROFUNCTIONAL BASIS OF PATTERN PRACTICE (LAMENDELLA)

Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL)

The Neurofunctional Basis of Pattern Practice Author(s): John T. Lamendella Source: TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 13, No. 1 (Mar., 1979), pp. 5-19 Published by: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL) Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3585971 Accessed: 07/07/2009 22:28 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=tesol. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL) is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to TESOL Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

TESOLQUARTERLY Vol. 13, No. 1 March 1979

The NeurofunctionalBasis of Pattern Practice John T. Lamendella An explanationis proposedfor the substantialfailure of pattern-practicedrills to equip most second language learnerswith the ability to automaticallyaccess Target Language grammaticalknowledge in communicativeinteractions.The hypothesized explanation is based on the neurofunctionalapproach described in Lamendella (1977) and Selinker and Lamendella (1978). Relevant theoretical results of clinicopathologicalinvestigations in neurolinguisticsinclude the existence of a dominant hemisphere Speech Copying Circuit which depends on functional interactionsbetween those neocortical systems involved in the elaborationof auditoryspeech input and those neocorticalsystems involved in the controlof articulatoryspeech output. Taken together, conductionaphasia and the transcorticalaphasias point out the functional autonomyof the crosschannel speech processing circuit from higher-level language processing, and the special status of imitation,repetition, and certain forms of substitutionand completion as distinct forms of speech behavior separable from propositional language. During mechanical pattern-practice drills, many second language learners may functionally disassociatethe speech copying circuit from higherlevel language processing systems (and from the language acquisitionprocess) as an efficient means of performinga repetitious cognitive task not related to communicativeinteractions. It is now generally recognized that mechanical pattern-practice drills fail to equip most second language learners with the ability to automatically access Target Language (TL) knowledge in communicative interactions. Among the reasons suggested for this failure, it has been noted that pattern-practice drills do not provide genuine communication practice nor do they provide a meaningful context within which sentences may be produced and understood by students (see Jakobovits 1970; Rivers 1973; Slager 1973). On one level these are adequate (if negative) explanations for the failure of pattern-practice drills to accomplish the goals set for them (cf. Table 1). However, in this paper I would like to reexamine the question of why pattern practice fails by hypothesizing about the information processing activities which they entail. In doing so, I hope to indirectly contribute to a better understanding of which pedagogical methods might best provide students with automatic access to TL linguistic knowledge in real-world interactions with TL speakers. The proposed explanation is framed in terms of the neurofunctional perspective on interlanguage learning described in Lamendella (1977) and Selinker & Lamendella (1978). A neurofunctional perspective on language attempts to characterize the neurolinguistic information processing systems responsible for the development Mr. Lamendellais AssociateProfessorof Linguisticsin the LinguisticsProgram,San Jose StateUniversity,California. 5

TESOL Quarterly

6

TABLE 1 1.

2.

3.

4.

Four Goals of Pattern-PracticeDrills in the Oral Approach At the phonological level, pattern-practice drills were intended to consolidate appropriate TL articulatory habits, and to help the student achieve phonological fluency through multiple repetitions of sentences. At the syntactic level, pattern-practice drills were assumed to consolidate the student's inductive generalizations about TL grammaticalpatterns, based on the repetition of many specific instances of the pattern, produced with different fillers. At all levels of language structure, pattern-practice drills were intended, through overlearning, to make correct TL speech habits automatic, so that they would be consistently elicited in future TL speech interactions. Through overlearning of "correct" TL habits, pattern-practice drills were intended to help the student overcome the bad effects of interference, that is, negative transfer from Native Language (NL) speech habits.

and use of language. The basic theoretical unit of this approach is the neurofunctional system (NFS), a functional construct organized within the nervous system at various anatomical strata and physiological levels in hierarchical fashion, with given neurofunctional systems (henceforth NFSs) operating to carry out specified functional roles in particular information processing domains. Among the many functional hierarchies associated with neural activity, Lamendella (1977) identified the communication hierarchy of NFSs as having principal responsibility for language and other forms of interpersonal human communication. Additionally, there was distinguished a cognition hierarchy of NFSs which controls a variety of "intrapersonal" cognitive information processing activities. As a matter of terminology and in an attempt to conceptually pin down distinctly different internal functional organizations, Lamendella (1977) distinguished the types of language acquisition outlined in Table 2. There can be little doubt that it is Secondary Language Acquisition which is the most appropriate goal for the majority of second language learning students. It is also clear that the oral approach and the audio-lingual method are uniquely structured to promote Foreign Language Learning in the majority of students. I shall propose an explanation as to why pattern-practice drills are an unproductive basis for effecting successful Secondary Language Acquisition. The bulk of the relevant empirical data which help us understand the organization of neurolinguistic systems in humans comes from the study of patients with neurological disorders, especially those with aphasic language disorders. Studying particular disorders of language may lead to useful conclusions about the functional organization of the neural systems responsible for the human capacity to acquire and use primary and nonprimary language. Before discussing two particular aphasic syndromes as a means of supporting hypotheses on the functional basis of pattern practice, I will review the principal speech regions which have been discovered to exist within the dominant cerebral hemisphere of our species. Figure 1 provides both a lateral (A) and a horizontal (B) view of those regions of the dominant hemisphere involved in major aspects of speech processing.

7

Pattern Practice TABLE 2 Major Types of Language Acquisition

I. PRIMARY LANGUAGE ACQUISITION The child's acquisition of one or more native languages, taking place from approximately 2-5 years of age in the context of the progressive maturation of the hierarchicallyorganized neural systems responsible for the development and use of language. Primary language acquisition is characterized by a biologically based series of developmental stages and becomes difficult to achieve outside of a critical period which ends at approximately 9-13 years of age. II. NONPRIMARYLANGUAGE ACQUISITION The older child or the adult's acquisition of a normative language after the period of primary language acquisition, when the relevant neural systems have already become operational and are engaged in primary language communication. Nonprimary language acquisition is characterizedby a progression of interlanguages and becomes more difficult to achieve outside of a sensitive period which ends at approximately 13 years of age. There are two main subtypes of nonprimarylanguage acquisition: A. FOREIGN LANGUAGE LEARNING The typical result of traditional methods of language instruction in a formal classroom setting. Foreign language learning leads to target language communicationskills marked by: 1) the application by the learner of the cognition hierarchy of neurofunctional systems as the basis for learning and speech performance;2) frequent conscious direction of target language speech performance;and 3) the use of translationbuffers to map between the native language' and the interlanguage. B. SECONDARY LANGUAGE ACQUISITION The more typical result of nonprimarylanguage acquisition in real-world 'naturalistic' settings in which target language communication skills are marked by: 1) the application by the learner of the communicationhierarchy of neurofunctionalsystems as the basis of learning and speech performance;2) the use of the interlanguage for internal representational coding functions; 3) the absence of translation buffers; and 4) automatic access to interlanguage grammatical and knowledge without the need for conscious direction. (Adapted from Lamendella 1977)

The two aphasic symptom complexes are: Conduction aphasia and the Transcortical aphasias. While I do not wish to oversimplify, it will not 'be possible to do justice to the complexities of these disorders here (for a general survey of language disorders, see Whitaker & Whitaker 1976a). 1. Conduction Aphasia In its "pure" form, conduction aphasia is manifested principally as a selective disruption of the repetition of speech, with patients having varying degrees of difficulty in accurately reproducing speech models. Patients can often recognize their errors, but despite frustration and self-criticism, cannot correct them (Green & Howes 1977). Given time, patients can sometimes reproduce the semantic content of speech models, but rarely in the original form of the model (DuBois et al. 1964; Hecaen et al. 1955). Speech comprehension in conduction aphasics remains more or less normal. Spontaneous speech production is often

TESOL Quarterly

8

FIGURE 1 The Principal Speech Regions of the Human Brain A Lateral view of the dominant (left) cerebral hemisphere. B Horizontal view of both the left and the right cerebral hemispheres. KEY: FL = Frontal Lobe, TL = Temporal Lobe, PL = Parietal Lobe, OL = Occipital Lobe; SF = Sylvian Fissure; SMG = SupramarginalGyrus, AG = Angular Gyrus, MFG = Middle Frontal Gyrus

AG

A

/ AREA BROCA'S

ARCUATE

FASCICULUS/

AREA WERNICKE'S

B

ARCUATE FASCICULUS

AREA BROCA'S AREA WERNICKE'S

Pattern Practice

9

marked by incorrect substitutions (paraphasias) at the phonological, lexical, and syntactic levels.' While a function such as repetition cannot in principle be localized in neural tissue, the location of the lesion which produces conduction aphasia tends to be in the posterior portion of the brain within the dominant hemisphere, in the general region surrounding the back portion of the Sylvian fissure (see Figure 1). The tissue damage almost always encompasses both the superficial cortical layers and the underlying white matter fiber tracts (Green & Howes 1977). Geschwind (1965) has proposed that the most typical lesion producing this disorder disrupts the fibers of the arcuate fasciculus (located deep to the supramarginal gyrus; see Figure 1). Such a functional dissociation of Wernicke's sensory speech area from Broca's motor speech area would interfere with the patient's ability to reproduce the form of speech models in repetition tasks. Simultaneously, the disassociation of Broca's area from Wernicke's area disrupts the guidance of speech output by phonologically elaborated auditory input. This explanation would account both for the observed repetition disorder and the moderately defective spontaneous speech output of conduction aphasics.2 2. Transcortical Aphasias The second set of symptom complexes I wish to focus on are the transcortical aphasias, involving the three main varieties outlined in Table 3. Geschwind et al. (1968) describe the case of a woman who suffered carbon monoxide poisoning, leading to widespread damage to cortical tissue. It was determined that the net effect of the tissue damage had been to functionally isolate from other cortical regions the mostly intact Broca's and Wemicke's speech areas, the auditory cortex, and the connections between them. The symptoms of this patient corresponded well to the classical description of mixed transcortical aphasia (see Table 3). Spontaneous speech in this patient was confined to a few stereotyped phrases; language comprehension was not evident. The patient was echolalic, compulsively repeating, with excellent articulation, utterances addressed to her. So as not to oversimplifythe symptomologicalpicture in conduction aphasia too much, it should be noted that while oral reading is approximatelythe same as speech, reading comprehension is impaired. Writing is worse than speech, and these patients often experience anomic word-finding difficulties (see Green & Howes 1977). Strub & Gardner (1974) concluded that the repetition deficit of conduction aphasics could be termed "an impairment in proceeding from a phonological analysis to the selection and combination of target phonemes" (p. 253). There is, however, serious disagreement about the precise functional character of this disorder. For example, some investigators believe that it is not so much a disorder of language as of short-term memory processing (e.g., Warrington 1971). DuBois et al. (1964) propose still another explanation, as do Luria (1970) and Brown (1975). 2 As Geschwind (1965) notes, in some conduction aphasics the arcuate fasciculus is intact, and only Wernicke's area is implicated pathologically. Kleist (1962) proposed that in such patients speech comprehension remained possible either because the homologue of Wernicke's area in the non-dominant hemisphere could take over this function after the destruction of Wernicke's area in the dominant hemisphere, or, for some smaller subset of patients, speech comprehension had been taking place in the non-dominant hemisphere all along. In either case, it seems that an intact Wernicke's area in the dominant hemisphere is not necessary for the reproduction of speech models.

TESOL Quarterly

10

TABLE3 Three Types of TranscorticalAphasia TRANSCORTICALMOTOR APHASIA While patients exhibit a preservation of the ability to imitate and repeat speech models; spontaneous speech and writing are virtually absent, and only brief responses can be elicited to specific stimuli such as objects to be named. Auditory comprehensionof speech is intact, but there is a general loss of initiative and stagnation of mental activity. The disorder is considered to result most often from a focal lesion in the portion of the frontal lobe just in front of the still intact Broca's area (see Figure 1; see Rubens (1976) for a recent review). TRANSCORTICALSENSORY APHASIA Patients show preservation of the repetition function but in the absence of any demonstrable comprehension of speech. Spontaneous speech output in these patients is fluent, well-articulated, but manifests paraphasic jargon. Reading and writing are typically absent. Patients may possess the ability to recite song lyrics or other memorized material. The disorder is thought to result from a large lesion in the temperoparietal region which spares Wemicke's area, but isolates it from the surrounding sensory association cortex (see Goldstein 1948; Brown 1972). MIXED TRANSCORTICALAPHASIA In the virtual absence of either spontaneous speech production or speech comprehension, patients exhibit excellent preservation of the capacity to imitate and repeat verbal stimuli addressed to them, and in fact seem to do so involuntarily. Patients give little evidence of propositional language capabilities. (See Coldstein 1948; Geschwind et al. 1968; H. Whitaker 1976).

This patient sometimes manifested the "completion"phenomenondescribed by Stengel et al. (1947). For example, primed with the phrase "Askme no questions . .

," she responded: "I'll tell you no lies." Also without comprehension,

this patient was able to carryon limited learning of sung verbal material,learning the words (and music) to new songs. The investigatorsconcludedthat, even with Wericke's area intact, language comprehensioncould not take place since the functionallyisolated speech areas were not capable of arousingassociationsin other cortical regions. Since, additionally, any ongoing activity in other corticalsystemscould not enter the speech areas, the patient was not able to produce true propositionallanguage. The second case of mixed transcorticalaphasiawe shall discuss is presented in an excellent study by H. Whitaker (1976), of a 59 year-old woman suffering presenile dementia. The disorder was manifested pathologically as a progressive diffuse atrophy of cortical tissue, and symptomologicallyas a progressive deteriorationof mental and linguistic capabilities. Again, for this patient, the speech areas remainedessentiallyintact but functionallyisolated from other cortical regions. The patient produced virtually no spontaneousspeech output and had marked impairment of speech comprehension.The presentation of stereotyped, or high-frequencyutterances, said with a non-terminalintonation contour, would sometimes elicit the completion phenomenonof Stengel et al. (1947). Under the appropriateconversationalconditions, this patient would also echo without comprehensionspeech models addressedto her. What makes this case of particular importance to understanding the func-

11

Pattern Practice

tional organization of neurolinguistic systems is that the patient would sometimes systematically alter the linguistic form of the words and sentences she reproduced. Table 4 provides a sampling of the sorts of lexical, syntactic, and semantic operations which were characteristic of certain modified echolalic repetitions by this patient based on residual speech capabilities. The patient's capacity to make these linguistic alterations and corrections demonstrates in a dramatic fashion that certain low level grammatical rules, i.e., those which have TABLE 4 Examples of Modified Echolalic Responses of a Patient With Mixed TranscorticalAphasia STIMULUS ITEM

PATIENT'S RESPONSE

1. Completions a. Where do you . . .

b. Down by the old . . . C. Jingle bells . . . (sung)

d. This pencil belongs . . . 2. Lexical Modifications a. fulfillment b. information C. apprehend d. excite e. aware f. impure 3. Corrections a. *There are two book on the table. b. *He give me the pencil. C. *Can you told me your name? d. *He thinking about you. e. *Do you want go movies? f. *What time it? g. *He ate he dinner. h. *She dressed itself. 4. Semantic Associations a. entertainment b. free C. inaccurate d. admonishment e. obey 5. Disambiguations a. growing corn b. shooting hunters C. hanging coats d. closing windows

Where do you live. by the old, old stream. Jingle bells, jingle bells, jingle all the way ... (rest of stanza sung) Pencil belongs to you. fulfill, fulfill informative apprehension exciting awareness pure There are few books on the table. He gave me the pencil. Can you tell me your name? He thinks about you. Do you want to go to a movie? What time is it? He ate his dinner. She dressed herself. card, entertainment free . . . enterprise, free enterprise

incorrect punish, punish order grow, grown corn, corn hunters shoot hanging of . . . coats closing the window, outing ...

window, look

out the window 6. Repetition of Semantic Anomalies a. The apple was eaten by a stone. b. The book is very happy. C. The table painted the chair.

Apple was eaten by a stone. The book is very happy. The table painted the chair. (adapted from H. Whitaker 1976)

TESOL Quarterly

12

been variously called "shallow" or "late" rules, can operate independent of higher level grammatical knowledge. H. Whitaker (1976) cautiously concluded that this case demonstrates the need to differentiate three levels of neurolinguistic structure, as outlined in Figure 3. It was inferred that, in this patient, LEVEL I and LEVEL II were intact, but that LEVEL III was severely impaired. As Whitaker notes, the traditional notion of grammar encompasses both LEVEL II and LEVEL III. FIGURE 3 Three Levels of Neurolinguistic Structure LEVEL I

Accurate auditory perception Accurate verbal production

SPEECH ^

^A

v LEVEL II ^

LEVEL LEVEL

III

Intact phonological organization (phonemic patterns, stress, and intonation, etc.); overlearned aspects of grammatical organization which become automatic (late rules of syntactic agreement, function words, etc.); probably certain semantic features of syntactic agreement, function words, etc.; probably certain semantic features of lexical items in addition to phonological ones and certain overlearned phrases and verbal automatisms. Cognition, intellectualfunctions, and creative creativeaspects Cognition,intellectual functions,and aspects

of language. (H. Whitaker 1976: 51)

v LANGUAGE (Automatic, nonvolitional) ^ LANGUA LANGUAGE

(Creative, volitional)

The significance of this patient's residual grammatical competence should be considered in light of the long history in aphasia research of distinguishing between automatic speech and propositional speech, as first emphasized by J. Hughlings Jackson in the late 19th century (see Taylor 1932). More recently, Van Lancker (1975) has reviewed this issue in some detail, positing a complex continuum between the two extremes of creative-voluntary-meaningful propositional speech on the one hand, and involuntary-less meaningful automatic speech on the other. In a later section we shall discuss certain ramifications of the distribution of speech and language functions along the automatic-propositional dimension. 3. Speech Copying Circuits In order to better understand the internal information processing basis for pattern-practice drills, it is useful to consider broader aspects of the functional specializations of the nervous system. From the lowest levels of neural organization, there exist many functional systems whose specialized role is the intercoordination and integration of the separate activities of sensory processing channels and motor processing channels.3 For example, there exists a cross3 Neural circuits which carry out such integrative activity may be abstractly characterized as relational coding maps, each particular map being defined in terms of a "source" realm (which is the Domain of the map) and a "goal" realm (which is the Range of the map).

Pattern Practice

13

channel circuit which allows the human infant to develop hand-eye coordination, which once developed, permits the infant to efficiently grasp an object presented in the visual field. As early as 12-17 days after birth, human infants show the ability to imitate lip protrusion, mouth opening, and tongue protrusion (see Meltzoff 1977). This capacity clearly requires the operation of some cross-channel circuit in the sense defined here, but manifests the additional constraint that the behavior output be a reproduction, or copy, of the event perceived. As a subtype of cross-channel circuit, we may identify cross-channel copying circuits as a fairly common functional characteristic of the vertebrate nervous system. Within the speech processing potential for our species, there are found many types of cross-channel copying circuits.4 The most basic example of such a circuit is an auditory-vocal one which may be presumed to involve a flow of information from Wernicke's area, perhaps via the arcuate fasciculus, to Broca's area. Based on this auditory-vocal circuit we have the potential to reproduce a copy of perceived phonological image frames by implementing a corresponding phonological movement schema. It is this speech-copying circuit which, by definition, is the basis of our ability to learn to shadow the speech of another person quickly and efficiently, repeating verbatim what has been said.5 Such coding circuits must be understood as functional entities which, while correlatable to anatomical, physiological and electrophysiologicalsubstrata, cannot be localized within neural tissue in any strict sense. At lower levels of neural organization, coding circuits tend to be highly specified in the genetic material, and therefore develop in the individual organism without the need for environmental learning. At high levels, however, such mapping circuits often require a period of stochastic, trial-and-errorlearning as the means of modifying future behavior. Those relational coding systems which map from sensory input to motor output may be viewed as cross-channel circuits, and should be distinguished from the cross-modal circuits which for example, establish the equivalence relations between auditory and visual perceptual arrays. 4 At some point after secondary neocortical systems become operational in human neural maturation,the infant attains the capacity to construct and store in long-term memory certain representationalinformation structures. Two major types of representationalstructures which may be identified are movement schemata, organized by systems involving anterior secondary motor regions of the brain, and image frames, organized by neurofunctional systems involving posterior secondary sensory regions (see Lamendella 1977). Based on these acquired information structures, adult individuals have the ability to efficiently recognize complex events and event sequences, along with the ability to produce skilled learned movements and movement sequences. Agnosia is a neurological disorder which disrupts the capacity to access stored image frames (see Brown 1972), and apraxia interferes with the capacity to implement stored movement schemata (see Geschwind 1975; Johns & LaPointe 1976). Crosschannel copying circuits also exist at this representationallevel and allow us, for example, to reproduce complex hand movements once they have been perceived. Ideomotor apraxia is a neurological disorder which interferes specifically with such representational cross-channel copying circuits (see Brown 1972). 5 Many other speech copying circuits exist and allow different combinations of input and output modalities to be coordinated. For example, there is a circuit which allows us to efficiently reproduce written material, often in the absence of comprehension. It is likely that this circuit involves the supramarginalgyrus in the temperoparietalregion of the brain, with impulses transmittedvia the orbitofrontalfasciculus to a secondary motor region in the frontal lobe which has been called "Exner's Writing Center" (i.e., the Middle Frontal Gyrus, see Figure 1; see Geschwind 1972). Still another circuit (or perhaps this same circuit) must be involved in the typist's ability to quickly translate visually perceived graphological configurationsinto particular skilled movements of the arms, and fingers in order to hit the right keys in the right sequence. In summary, then, it may safely be concluded that at many levels

14

TESOL Quarterly

The operation of this same circuit is impaired in conductionaphasia, since such patients not only cannot shadow other persons,but have great difficultyin reproducingspeech models in general. This speech copying circuit is preserved in the transcorticalaphasias, even while speech comprehensionand/or speech productionare severely impaired. An importantcharacteristicof such copying circuits follows from the plausible belief that there is often little value in involving systems at a higher level within the same hierarchy.For example,if a typist were to feel obliged to read and comprehend written material before hitting the appropriatekeys, there would be very few 100 word-per-minutetypists. Impressionistically,in close shadowing of the speech of another person, it seems that comprehensionof a given sentence tends to follow the actual productionof that sentence. We may conclude that it is possible, and often adaptive, to functionally disassociate a copying circuit from higher systems within that same functionaldomain. Therefore, the disassociationof the speech repetition function from language comprehension and language formulation may be assumed to occur not only in pathological conditions such as conduction aphasia, but also as an adaptive aspect of normal human informationprocessing. The reader will perhaps not be surprisedwhen I suggest that in order to efficientlyperformpattern-practicedrills, it is helpful to functionallydisassociate the speech copying circuit from higher-levellanguage processing.It is precisely this "shortcircuit"which would facilitate the fluid carry out of choral and individual performanceon pattern-practicedrills. There can be little doubt that some subset of second language learnersdo disassociatethe speech copying circuit during classroompractice, though it would be difficultto prove just how many do so, and how often. What I hope to do here is establish the plausibility of such a functional disassociationbeing an integral part of pattern-practice drillsin the classroom. To establish this claim beyond a reasonable doubt would entail specific empiricalconfirmationthat the speech copying circuit itself possesses the potential to learn to control the substitutionsand other manipulationscharacteristic of the sentences producedby studentsin responseto the teacher'scueing during pattern-practicedrills. I feel that belief in this potential of the speech copying circuit is at least partially supported since, as the patient described by H. Whitaker (1976) convincinglyshows for the native language, speech processing at this level can in fact muster a certain level of lexical and syntactic competence, including the potentialto modify the word class of an input speech model. Over and above the capacities we have attributed to the speech copying circuit, the learningwhich takes place between the time a student first attempts a pattern-practicedrill and the point at which the student becomes proficientat this endeavor seems to involve at least three processes: of neurofunctional organization, and in many functional domains including speech and language, there exist information processing circuits which allow the efficient behavioral reproduction of perceived sensory arrays.

Pattern Practice

1) making the appropriateidentificationof the word class of the cued item. 2) matching the cued item with an element in the model sentence which is of the same word class. 3) inserting the cued item into the currentphonologicalmovement schema representationof the model sentence. Once mastered,these processeswould not requireconsciousdirection,and there is no reason why the involvement of higher level language systems would be required for their execution. The hypothesizedfunctional disassociationbetween the speech copying circuit and higher-level language systems, done by some subset of students as a means of performingpattern-practicedrills more efficiently,would account for the impression of many teachers and students that, while engaged in patternpractice drills, the student'smind is often on other things. Thus far, the proposed information processing basis of pattern-practice drills would not be particularlyupsetting to the traditionalbehaviorist/applied linguist belief in the utility of mechanical drills. However, there remains the serious question of whether the second language acquisitionprocess is actually facilitated or inhibited by such drilling. Furthermore,it is not at all obvious that pattern-practiceexercises constitute useful practice of TL grammatical knowledge once it has been acquired.An adequate answer to these two crucial questions requires an explicit understandingof how much and which types of grammaticallearning the systems at the level of the speech copying circuit are capable of achieving while disassociatedfrom higher level systems within the relevantfunctionalhierarchy.Additionally,we must understandmore thoroughly the circumstancesunder which any automationof behavioral sequences would take place as a direct result of the practice achieved by mechanicalpattern-practice drills. To approachthese issues, I shall briefly discuss certain aspects of the automationof behavioral sequences in neurofunctionalsystems. 4. Automationin NeurofunctionalSystems When first confrontedwith the need to acquire new informationstructures as the basis for performing a novel behavioral task, a learner must identify the functional hierarchy best suited to this learning, then establish the appropriate level and subsystemswithin the hierarchywith which to begin the learning process. It seems to be a general characteristicof this type of learning that the novel behavioral task is initially carried out by the executive component of the responsible NFS operating in the monitor mode (cf. Lamendella 1977; Selinker& Lamendella1978; cf. also the "monitormodel" of Krashen1977). In part, because of the high demands placed on available processing resources, NFSs operate under the imperative to opt out of the monitor mode when possible. One of the two major ways of accomplishingthis involves a process of automationin which the executive of the NFS directs the construction of informationschematastored as automatedsubroutinesat a lower level within

16

TESOL Quarterly

the hierarchy.6 Many facets of overt speech production and covert speech comprehension, once acquired by higher level systems, are likely stored as automated subroutines at lower levels within the communication hierarchy. Such subroutines may be implemented either automatically under pre-specified conditions, or as called up by the executive which originally directed their construction. Automated speech sequences tend to remain intact despite a pathological disruption of the higher level systems of the dominant hemisphere. The emotioncharged phrases and other automatic speech phenomena discussed by Van Lancker (1975) persist in many aphasics as residual automated subroutines controlled by intact lower levels of the communication hierarchy. For many such automatic speech phenomena, however, the intact lower level systems do not seem to possess the capacity to carry out the initial learning. Once entrenched as automated subroutines at lower levels of the communication hierarchy, automatic speech phenomena may be evoked under appropriate conditions despite their pathological disassociation from higher-level language systems. For example, I believe the most reasonable working hypothesis is that the LEVEL II grammatical functions which remained available to the patient described in H. Whitaker (1976) had been initially acquired by the disrupted higher-level systems, but that these functions had been delegated as automated subroutines to the NFSs based in the speech areas.7 The implications of this view for pattern-practice drills is that also in the second language learner the acquisition of lexical and syntactic functions may derive from language systems above the level of the speech areas and the speech copying circuit. Any functional disassociation of the speech copying circuit from these higher level systems during pattern practice certainly would tend to impede the process of secondary language acquisition for those lexical and syntactic functions beyond the learning potential of the systems of the speech areas. The precise learning potential of those functional systems at the level of the speech copying circuit is by no means clear, however. It is conceivable, for example, that the speech copying circuit plays a special role in the acquisition 6 Marr (1969) and Blomfield & Marr (1970) have proposed that the cerebellum often serves as a memorizationdevice for motor actions initially organized elsewhere (cf. also Evarts 1973). Thus, for example, when first learning how to drive a car, the actual driving is carried out by high level systems operating in the monitor mode with conscious direction of the many behavioral operations contributing to this complex skill. At some point after enough practice has been attained, neuromotorinformation schemata are automated at lower levels, thus leaving higher level consciousness available for attention to other ongoing processing. 7 Thus, I must disagree with any interpretationwhich holds that the dichotomy between Whitaker's LEVEL II and LEVEL III grammatical functions ipso facto implies that the speech systems of Broca's area and Wericke's area have the responsibility for acquiring LEVEL II grammar. During primary language acquisition, and by extension secondary language acquisition, the functional roles which may legitimately be ascribed to the speech NFSs whose major anatomical correlates reside within the speech regions exist for the most part at the level of phonological representation of image frames and movement schemata (roughly corresponding to Whitaker's LEVEL I). During the period when these are the highest level communication systems operational in human ontogeny-from about 12 montlhs postnatally-the child possesses neither active nor passive syntactic or morphological competence (Lamendella 1975).

Pattern Practice

17

and use by second language learners of the "formulaic expressions" described by L. Fillmore (1976) in five child second language learners.8 5. Pedagogical Implications As previously noted, pattern-practice drills have been pragmatically observed to fail in accomplishing the goals set for them. This in itself is obviously a strong recommendation for their discontinuation as a central component of any foreign language teaching curriculum. However, even someone who agreed that such drills were not suited to the initial learning of TL grammar might believe that they should be preserved in the classroom because they provide useful practice leading to phonological fluency and the automation of already acquired grammatical patterns. While at first these conclusions seem reasonable, there is a catch. Pattern-practice drills (and the oral approach in general) prompt the learner to engage in Foreign Language Learning based on the cognition hierarchy, rather than Second Language Acquisition based on the communication hierarchy (see Table 2). Without special training, any phonological fluency or automated grammatical skills which have been acquired as part of Foreign Language Learning will not be available to the student except: (1) automatically during further classroom drills; and (2) as directed by the systems of the cognition hierarchy operating in the monitor mode. In either case, the student loses. Even though the systems of the speech areas form part of both the cognition hierarchy and the communication hierarchy, the executive functions of the communication hierarchy do not seem to have the capacity to call up automated subroutines whose construction was directed by the cognition hierarchy. This partially accounts for the frequent observation of learners whose linguistic competence is drastically different for real-world communicative attempts versus the sorts of exercises which frequently characterize the formal classroom situation. These conclusions apply not just to pattern-practice drills, but to any classroom activity which does not prompt the learner to engage the communication hierarchy as the basis of second language learning. Successful classroom methods from this point of view would be those which were so designed that the neurofunctional systems of the speech areas (and particularly the speech copying circuit) could not perform successfully when functionally disassociated 8 The children observed by Fillmore (1976) seemed to operate in terms of a strategy which prompted them to reproduce certain useful, situationally appropriate expressions as unanalyzed wholes (cf. also Huang 1971; Hakuta 1974). Fillmore concluded that, rather than such formulas being imitative behavior peripheral to the acquisition process, they may well be a central part of naturalistic language acquisition since such expressions can provide both a quick entry into social interchanges in the TL and linguistic material upon which analytical learning activities could later be carried out. In terms of the neurofunctional approach described in this paper, it seems that such speech formulas may be acquired as movement schemata at the level of the classic speech regions. Basically, what distinguishes them from non-formulaicspeech is that they seem to be mapped as a unit directly into some semantic-conceptual representation without having undergone syntactic analysis by grammatical systems above the level of the speech regions. Since pattern-practicedrills are carried out in a TL social-interactive void, it is probable that they could not take advantage of such formulaic learning, although other sorts of exercises might well be able to utilize this important facet of language acquisition.

18

TESOL Quarterly

from higher-levellanguage processingsystems. Once TL grammaticalknowledge was acquired by these higher systems within the communicationhierarchy, further practice in communicatingwould, it is hoped, lead to the automation of appropriateTL speech habits at lower levels. 6. Summary The major reason why pattern-practicedrills fail to accomplish successful secondary language acquisition is that they prompt most learners to engage functional systems which actually form an inappropriatebasis for such learning. This conclusion should be evaluated in light of the four working hypotheses which have been the focus of this paper: 1. Performance of mechanical pattern-practice drills necessarily involves a speech copying circuit at the level of those speech systems whose anatomical and physiological correlates are within the classical speech regions, Broca's area and Wernicke's area. The speech copying circuit allows the student to reproduce an input model sentence with incorporationof appropriatemodifications as directed by the teacher. 2. As an efficient means of performing a repetitious cognitive task not related to communicative interactions, many learners functionally disassociate the speech copying circuit from higher level language systems during pattern-practicedrills. 3. Since the systems of the speech regions operate mainly at the level of phonological representation, their disassociation from higher-level language processing systems renders pattern practice an ineffective basis for the acquisition of lexical and syntactic grammatical functions. 4. It is Secondary Language Acquisition based on the communication hierarchy which provides the best basis for communicative competence in real-world conversational interactions. For most students, pattern-practice drills lead to Foreign Language Learning in which acquired behavioral subroutines for phonology or grammarmay be evoked automatically only in further classroom exercises. Conversational interactions for such learners typically require conscious direction, with speech behavior produced under the direction of the cognition hierarchy. In consequence, the student's performance does not reliably lead to communicative success. RE'ERENCES

Blomfield, S. and D. Marr. 1970. How the cerebellum may be used. Nature 227: 1224-1228.

Brown, J. 1972. Aphasia, apraxia,and agnosia. Springfield,Ill.: C. C. Thomas Co.

Brown,J. 1975. The problemof repetition:a study of "conduction" aphasiaand the

"isolation"syndrome.Cortex 11: 37-52. Dubois, J., H. Hecaen, R. Angelergues, A. de Chatelier and P. Marcie. 1964. Etude neurolinguistique de l'aphasie de conduction. Neuropsychologia 2: 9-44. Reprinted in H. Goodglassand S. E. Blumstein (Eds.) Psycholinguisticsand aphasia. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, pp. 283-800. Evarts, E. V. 1973. Motor cortex reflexes associated with learned movement. Science 179: 501-3. Fillmore, L. 1976. The second time around: Cognitive and social strategies in second language acquisition. Unpubl. PhD. Dissertation, Stanford University. Geschwind, N. 1965. Disconnexion syndromes in animals and man. Part II. Brain 88, 3: 585-644. Geschwind, N. 1972. Language and the brain. Scientific American 226, 4: 76-83. Geschwind, N. 1975. The apraxias: neural mechanisms of disorders of learned movement. American Scientist 63, 2: 188-195.

Pattern Practice

19

Geschwind, N., F. A. Quadfasel and J. M. Segarra. 1968. Isolation of the speech area. Neuropsychologia6: 327-340. Goldstein, K. 1948. Language and language disturbances.New York:Grune & Stratton. Green, E. and D. H. Howes. 1977. The nature of conduction aphasia: a study of anatomic and climncalfeatures and underlying mechanisms, pp. 123-156 in Vol. 3, H. Whitakerand H. A. Whitaker (Eds.). Hakuta, K. 1974. A preliminaryreport on the development of grammaticalmorphemes in a Japanese girl learning English as a second language. Working Papers on Bilingualism,3: 8-43. Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. Hecaen, H. M. B. Dell and A. Roger. 1955. L'aphasiede conduction (Leitungsaphasie). Encephale 2: 170-195. Huang, J. 1971. A Chinese child's acquisition of English syntax. Unpubl. Master's thesis, University of California,Los Angeles. Jakobovits,L. 1970. Foreign language learning. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House. Johns, D. F. and L. L. LaPointe. 1976. Neurogenic disorders of output processing: Apraxiaof speech, pp. 161-199 in H. Whitakerand H. A. Whitaker (eds.), Vol. 1. Kleist, K. 1962. Sensory aphasia and amusia. Oxford: PergamonPress. Konorski,J., H. Kozniewska,and L. Stepien. 1961. Analyses of symptomsand cerebral localization of the audio-verbal aphasia. Proceedings of the VIIth International Congress of Neurology 2: 234-235. Krashen,S. 1977. The monitormodel for adult second language performance,pp. 152161 in M. Burt, H. Dulay and M. Finocchiaro (Eds.) Viewpoints on English as a second language. New York: Regents. Lamendella, . T. 1975. Maturationalstages in the development of communication systems by the child. California Linguistics Association Conference. (Reprinted by ERIC Clearinghouse.) Lamendella, J. T. 1977. General principles of neurofunctionalorganizationand their manifestationsin primaryand non-primarylanguage acquisition.Language Learning 27, 1: 155-196. Luria, A. R. 1970. Traumaticaphasia. The Hague: Mouton. Marr,D. 1969. Theory of cerebellarcortex. J. Physiology (London) 202: 437-470. Meltzoff, A. M. 1977. Imitation of facial and manual gestures by human neonates. Science 198: 75-78. Rivers, W. 1973. From linguistic competence to communicativecompetence. TESOL Quarterly7, 1: 25-34. Rubens, A. B. 1977. Transcorticalmotor aphasia, pp. 293-303 in H. Whitaker and H. A. Whitaker (Eds.), Vol. 3. Selinker, L. and J. T. Lamendella. 1978. Two perspectives on fossilization in interlanguage learning. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin 3, 2+3. Slager, W. R. 1973. Creating contexts for language practice. TESOL Quarterly7, 1: 35-50. Stengel, E., M. D. Vienna and L. R. C. P. Edin. 1947. A clinical and psychological study of echo reactions. Journalof Mental Science 93: 598-612. Strub, R. L. and H. Gardner. 1974. The repetition defect in conduction aphasia: mnestic or linguistic. Brain and Language 1: 241-256. Taylor, J. (Ed.). 1932. Selected writings of John Humphrey Jackson, Vols. 1 & 2. London: Hodder and Stoughton. Van Lancker, D. 1975. Heterogeneity in language and speech: Neurolinguisticstudies. Working Papers in Phonetics 29, University of California,Los Angeles. Warrington,E. K. 1971. Neurological disorders of memory. British Medical Bulletin 24: 243-247. Whitaker, H. 1976. A case of the isolation of the language function, pp. 1-58 in H. Whitakerand H. A. Whitaker (Eds.), Vol. 2. Whitaker, H. and H. A. Whitaker. 1976a. Language disorders, pp. 250-274 in R. Wardhaugh and D. Brown (Eds.) A survey of applied linguistics. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Whitaker,H. and H. A. Whitaker (Eds.). Studies in neurolinguistics.Vol. 1 (1976b); Vol. 2. (1976c); Vol. 3 (1977); Vol. 4 (to appear). New York: Academic Press.

ULTIMATE ATTAINMENT IN L2 PROFICIENCY (PARADIS)

9>7FJ;H


Ultimate attainment in L2 proficiency It is no longer possible to speak of language without taking into consideration the facts that (1) the language system is one component of verbal communication, (2) the language system contains dissociable modules that have their own intrinsic properties; and (3) implicit components of language are different in nature and subject to different types of control than explicit components (in particular vocabulary) – they develop independently of each other according to their own genetically programmed timetable, and are susceptible to different external factors. These considerations are essential in the investigation of a critical period for language acquisition. There are basically two schools of thought on the critical period hypothesis: neuroscientists assume that there is some form of critical period that is too obvious to warrant discussion, let alone a controversial debate; language teachers and social psychologists are adamant that there is no such thing as a critical period and refuse to even consider neurological data. The term “critical period” is so controversial that it would be counterproductive to use it here. Suffice it to mention the differences between ultimate attainment in L2 as compared to L1 and investigate the neurophysiological factors that account for the readily observable and widely acknowledged differences. In many animals, it has been shown (and uncontroversially accepted) that neural circuits are shaped by experience during restricted periods in early life (Yazaki-Sugiyama, et al., 2007): These include the cat (Hubel & Wiesel, 1962), mouse (Iwai & Lester, 2006), and some songbirds (Hensch, 2004). It would be surprising if the human brain were exempt from such restrictions (though less surprising that their existence is not easily accepted – the wish for free will is overwhelming). If there is a critical period, it is certainly different from that observed in birdsong or cats’ ability to acquire the perception of vertical lines. For one thing, the human brain takes much longer to mature than any other animal’s, including other primates. Therefore, the notion of an optimal period for acquiring languages will be proposed after discussion of the available data. The least controversial observation is that every individual without severe mental defects has acquired a native language. Some have even acquired two or more. Not everyone who has acquired an L1 manages to acquire an L2. Some individuals find it excruciatingly difficult and some never get beyond the most basic rudiments. Why is this so? The non-neurophysiological factors that are proposed by researchers are in fact, as we are about to see, direct consequences of a variety of neural underpinnings.

PA

©

JO

HN

E G

B

J N E

AM

R P

I

NS

P

O O

L B U

H IS

S F

I

NG

C

OM

P

Y N A

 Declarative and procedural determinants of second languages

Not just the manner of appropriation, but the nature of what is appropriated (competence vs. knowledge) is affected by age of L2 appropriation. Children exposed to L2 interaction starting any time before the age of 4 or 5 (and the younger the better) acquire the second language implicitly, like the first, using procedural memory. For example, early German-French bilinguals were found to have no problem with acquiring French gender before age 3, but to have problems when French is acquired after the age of 3 (Möhring, 2001). After age 6 or 7, second language appropriation relies more and more on conscious learning, thus involving declarative memory.



Ultimate attainment in L1 and L2

O O

S F

OM

P

Y N A

Birdsong (2006) remarks that there is a widespread belief that native-like attainment by late L2 learners will be confined to one or a few tasks and that an individual will not display native-likeness across the full range of linguistic behaviors or experimental performances. His overview of empirical findings does not show otherwise. Interestingly, Birdsong (2007) reports that most tasks on which late L2 learners are able to approach or achieve native-likeness are off-line tasks. In any case, the learners often do better on off-line tasks. Also, there seems to be no limit to the ability to learn L2 vocabulary (though the exact semantic boundaries of words, their various connotations, and the constraints on their uses in proper contexts, which depend on experience (including incidental experience1) rather than explicit instruction, remain incomplete). This would suggest that there is something peculiar to such tasks. One aspect worth considering is that off-line tasks are known to rely on explicit knowledge, hence on declarative memory rather than implicit competence. This might imply that, perhaps, the capacity to acquire implicit linguistic competence is susceptible to decline with increasing age of onset of L2 appropriation. Whether there is a critical or sensitive period or a gradual decline up to a certain age, there appears to be a rather early age after which a second language does not reach native-likeness in all aspects of use, as shown in Birdsong’s (2006) overview and (2007) presentation. This is not to say that, after many years of total immersion and practice, L2 never becomes very close to native-like in many aspects – sufficiently so for everyday practical purposes.

PA

©

JO

HN

E G

B

J N E

AM

R P

I

NS

P

L B U

H IS

I

NG

C


New words can be acquired incidentally when listening to, and reading, a story while focusing on comprehension. The meaning of words is learned even if one does not remember having encountered them in the text (Horst, Cobb, & Meara, 1998).

Chapter 4. Ultimate attainment in L2 proficiency 

Birdsong proposes that there may not be a single linguistic task that some individual cannot fully master (in relative isolation) in L2. This means that, in principle, any given linguistic task can be mastered by someone. But there definitely seems to be a dearth of individuals able to master all components. Native-like proficiency in the second language is almost never acquired and second-language processing is slower (Toppelberg, 1997). Why should this be? Different individuals are able to deal with any one or two components of second language processing, but not all components at the same time. This suggests that these individuals are not able to consciously control so many components simultaneously, and hence at least some components are not automatized. Let us remember that divided attention (i.e., having to pay attention to more than one task at the same time) interferes with performance on explicit tasks, not on automatized processes: A native speaker has no problem processing in parallel the various phonological, morphological, and syntactic components during lexical retrieval. At the very least, this is an indication that a different mechanism is at work, at least partially, in L2 processing – and a good candidate is the use of declarative memory to compensate for the gaps in L2 implicit linguistic competence. According to Roehr (2008a), implicit linguistic competence is stored in and retrieved from an associative network during parallel distributed processing, whereas explicit knowledge is processed sequentially with the help of rule-based algorithms. The difference in kind between these two processes results in phonology, morphology, syntax, and lexical retrieval being processed in parallel (hence simultaneously) by linguistic competence, while metalinguistic knowledge is processed only one item at a time; metalinguistic knowledge requires attention, whereas linguistic competence does not. Studies that specifically examine the ability of L2 users to pass for native speakers indicate that passing for a native speaker is a temporary, context-, audience-, and medium-dependent performance (Piller, 2002; Marinova-Todd, 2003). This reinforces the notion that even expert L2 users’ performance is controlled to some extent (i.e., not as automatic as native speakers’), as previously suspected, given that a late-learned L2 is more vulnerable to noise, fatigue, stress, and declarativememory impairments (amnesia, Alzheimer’s disease, even normal aging). It is also positively related, among other things, to amount of formal L2 study and level of formal education (Marinova-Todd, 2003), factors that do not affect the acquisition and concurrent use of phonology, morphology, syntax and pragmatics of L1. Many studies do show that adults are able to learn one or another aspect of language to a native-like level, independent of the other components of grammar. In L2, different components of the implicit language system are appropriated independently of each other at different rates and to different extents. This contrasts with the way very young children simultaneously acquire phonology, morphology

PA

©

JO

HN

E G

B

J N E

AM

R P

I

NS

P

O O

L B U

H IS

S F

I

NG

C

OM

P

Y N A

 Declarative and procedural determinants of second languages

and syntax without paying attention to these components, while focusing their attention on the semantic and pragmatic aspects of verbal communication. Typically, when one skill component has been mastered in a second language, it is after much concentration on that particular component, independently of all others. Effort, hence conscious control, is exerted in developing a particular language component in a way that is not the natural way of developing implicit linguistic competence. The latter is achieved by developing the various components of language structure in parallel, incidentally, without paying attention, and without focusing one’s efforts on any specific subcomponent (phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics and the grammatization of the lexicon). They are all internalized simultaneously (possibly at different levels of development in each, but concurrently nevertheless). Thus, they are integrated into implicit linguistic competence and can be used in unison when performing the normal task of comprehending and producing the complex construct that an utterance represents, with each part contributing to the whole (prosody, segmental phonology, morphology, syntax, lexicon). Moreover, each component is selected automatically in accordance with the pragmatics of the situation, including the intention to communicate a particular message, modulated by the specific situational context, the knowledge of the interlocutor’s beliefs, and placing emphasis on the appropriate concept through all means afforded by the grammar – i.e., prosody, word order, inflectional morphology, loudness, speed of delivery, etc. In Marinova-Todd’s (2003) study, some L2 learners failed to achieve nativelike levels of proficiency in grammar knowledge, but scored within the native range on pronunciation measures, whereas other L2 learners achieved nativelike scores on grammar measures and failed to achieve native accent in the L2. Thus, some highly proficient L2 speakers tend to be stronger in some areas of L2 knowledge and weaker in others, and score within the native range in only some domains, which means that they have not internalized the L2 as a whole. When much effort is exerted on one particular aspect, it may reach native levels, but it is a skill that is not integrated into the general implicit linguistic competence system for that language. In this study, out of a group of 30 participants selected from among very highly proficient L2 speakers, only 3 participants consistently achieved scores within the native range. And even then, scores within the native range do not necessarily imply that these participants used the same means to achieve similar results. The reasoning that, because some individuals are able to attain native-likeness in some aspects of L2 performance, it can be assumed that it is possible for some individuals to attain native-likeness in all language tasks, is fundamentally flawed. Normal language performance incorporates all components and puts them into action simultaneously. This is made possible because the various integrated

PA

©

JO

HN

E G

B

J N E

AM

R P

I

NS

P

O O

L B U

H IS

S F

I

NG

C

OM

P

Y N A

Chapter 4. Ultimate attainment in L2 proficiency 

functions are automatic, without conscious control, in which case, there is no dispersion of effort. As Hyltenstam and Abrahamsson (2003) point out, the subtle differences that seem to exist between native and native-like proficiency “are probably highly insignificant in all aspects of the second language speaker’s life and endeavors, although very significant for a theory of human capacity for language learning” (p. 580).



The optimal period

The notion of optimal period retains the general characteristics of the traditional critical period (it applies to skills, it is time-sensitive (if not time-locked) and depends on properties of the brain), but is more flexible in that it is not categorical (all-or-nothing) and admits of variability among individuals with respect to maturational deadlines and length of developmental stages (themselves determined by complex interactions between genetic and experiential factors). The fact that there are (rare) exceptions does not mean that there is not a general principle at work. (Some sheep are born with five legs;2 this does not prevent encyclopedias and veterinary handbooks from describing sheep as four-legged.) In the context of interest, the optimal period hypothesis thus applies to implicit linguistic competence, which depends in large part on the expression of the gene FOXP2. The gradual decline in procedural memory for language forces late second-language learners to rely on explicit learning, which results in the use of a different cognitive system from that which supports their native language. It is the acquisition of implicit competence that is affected by age, both biologically (gradual loss of plasticity of the procedural memory for language after about age 5) and cognitively (greater reliance on conscious declarative memory for learning in general and, consequently, for learning a language from about age 7). If we assume that normal language acquisition and use refer to the incidental internalization and automatic use of implicit linguistic competence, then an optimal period affects the acquisition of language. It is a gradual process within a window between the ages of 2 and 5 years, give or take a few months in view of the considerable interindividual variability in the rate of maturation in general and of development of the language areas in particular. In fact, even birdsong critical periods are not chronologically invariant and their duration can be regulated by the amount of tutor song exposure, vocal practice, and the brain’s steroidal milieu (Mooney, Prather, & Roberts, 2008).

PA

©

JO

HN

E G

B

J N E

AM

R P

I

NS

P

O O

L B U

H IS

S F

I

NG

C

OM

P


One specimen is exhibited at the Musée Cantonal de Zoologie, Lausanne, Switzerland.

Y N A

 Declarative and procedural determinants of second languages

Human FOXP2 is a gene whose integrity is necessary (but not sufficient) for the acquisition of implicit linguistic competence. It determines the expression of various genes at specific times during brain development and at diverse time-points during the lifetime of an organism (Marcus & Fisher, 2003), including that of areas of the cerebellum and basal ganglia that subserve the acquisition and subsequent processing of implicit linguistic competence. Its mutation (or a lack of exposure to language input at the time of its programmed triggering of the relevant genes) disrupts language acquisition. Individuals must then have recourse to compensatory mechanisms in order to appropriate language through learning. The optimal period thus refers to the period during which individuals must be exposed to language interaction if they are to acquire linguistic competence. This period has an upper limit that varies with respect to which component of the implicit language system is acquired, namely, in chronological order, prosody, phonology, morphology, and syntax (including syntactic features of the lexicon). But the vocabulary, that is, the sound-meaning pairing of words, is conscious and hence subserved by declarative memory; consequently, it is not susceptible to the optimal periods that apply to the various components of implicit competence. Systematic performance in real-time3 language processing is the litmus test of implicit linguistic competence. “Age of exposure during language acquisition seems to have a dramatic impact on the subsequent real-time processing of sentences” (Friederici, Steinhauer, & Pfeifer, 2002: 529). The optimal period that applies to implicit linguistic competence can be masked to some extent by reliance on compensatory mechanisms whose control can be considerably speeded-up. To the extent that proficient L2 is subserved by declarative memory, it is not susceptible to the optimal period. Not only does L2 performance differ from L1, but it differs along the implicit/ explicit dimension. Given that vocabulary learning is sustained by declarative memory (in both L1 and L2), there is no optimal period for learning new words or explicit grammatical rules, except for the gradual decline of declarative memory function with advanced aging, culminating in senility (and accelerated in Alzheimer’s disease).

PA

©



JO

HN

E G

B

J N E

AM

R P

I

NS

P

O O

L B U

H IS

S F

I

NG

C

OM

P

Y N A

Optimal window of opportunity

To ascertain the learner’s potential in post-adolescent L2 acquisition is a legitimate goal and a commendable enterprise. The very fact that the question is posed


As opposed to off-line, when individuals have the opportunity to consciously control what they are doing (or saying), as in written tasks in general and grammaticality judgment tasks in particular. Tasks performed in real time (i.e., on-line tasks) are assumed to be performed automatically.

Chapter 4. Ultimate attainment in L2 proficiency 

highlights the fact that there is a difference between implicit linguistic competence attainment in L1 and L2. One would not propose to study the potential for native language acquisition in normal (i.e., not brain-damaged or profoundly mentally impaired) individuals without FOXP2 genetic anomaly. Note that although richness of vocabulary varies between native speakers, the ability to fully acquire the basic phonology, morphology, and syntax of the individual’s topo-/sociolect does not. There are indeed differences in what individuals can do with their native language, in how colorfully they are able to express their ideas, but all have mastered the components of the implicit grammar of their language and are able to use them simultaneously to understand and produce utterances automatically. That means that their output is consistent, that is, without variability: they do not vibrate their vocal flaps for the right number of milliseconds or place the adverb in the correct position only 75% of the time (or “above chance,” as is often reported with obvious satisfaction in L2 studies, incorrectly interpreted as evidence of incorporation of the tested element into the subjects’ implicit competence). If one day you started violating subject-verb agreement 25% of the time, your close friends and relatives would no doubt be alarmed. There seems to be a period from birth to age 4 or 5 after which nativelikeness becomes progressively rarer and attainment less successful. In other words, between the ages of 2 and 5, children acquire the basic grammar of their native language(s). When individuals are exposed to a second language after that age, native-likeness is rarely, if ever, achieved on all language tasks even though behavioral measures may improve especially after years of total immersion in an L2 environment. But as Birdsong (2006) rightly points out, native-likeness at the L2 acquisition end state does not imply access to Universal Grammar (or implicit linguistic competence) – especially in the light of better results on off-line than on-line tasks and poorer results on those aspects that are more difficult to control consciously (e.g., phonology) than on those like syntax, where surface word order and other features are observable and can be volitionally controlled (and, with practice, speeded up). Based on their study of Nicaraguan sign language (and on studies by Kegl, Senghas, & Coppola, 1999; Newport, Bavelier, & Neville, 2001; Senghas & Coppola, 2001; and Mayberry, Lock, & Kazmi, 2002), Morgan and Kegl (2006) estimate the window of time for language acquisition to be less than 6 years for native-like acquisition, and less than 10 to gain some acquisition benefits. According to Mayberry et al. (2002), language learning ability is determined by the onset of language experience during early brain development, independent of the modality of experience (spoken or ASL). The ability to acquire language arises from a synergy between early brain development and language experience. It is seriously compromised when language is not experienced during early life. The timing of the initial language experience during human development strongly

PA

©

JO

HN

E G

B

J N E

AM

R P

I

NS

P

O O

L B U

H IS

S F

I

NG

C

OM

P

Y N A

 Declarative and procedural determinants of second languages

influences the capacity to learn language throughout life. Newman et al. (2002) have demonstrated that the right hemisphere angular gyrus is active during ASL processing only in native signers. Right-hemisphere damage in native signers leads to impairments in the processing of syntactic constructions and classifiers that rely on spatial relationships. This region is less susceptible to modification by experience after puberty. Adolescent ASL first-language learners cannot process the language as efficiently as native signers due to their lack of grammatical competence and related problems in processing (Morford, 2003). Similarly, Grimshaw et al. (1994, 1998) describe the case of a young man who, profoundly deaf since birth, was fitted with auditory aids at the age of 15. His subsequent language development has demonstrated growth of vocabulary and semantically related syntax, but he has considerable difficulty with syntactic structures that cannot be semantically mediated. The authors conclude that his development is consistent with the hypothesis that there is a critical period for first language acquisition, especially with respect to syntax. They point out that individuals who were not exposed to language until after the optimal period present a failure to comprehend some syntactic structures (pro-forms, movement rules, verb tense) and a large disparity between comprehension and production (thanks no doubt to the availability of context and pragmatic cues). Mayberry (1993) investigated whether the long-range outcome of L1 appropriated after early childhood is similar to that of L2 learning in deaf individuals. Participants born with normal hearing subsequently lost in late childhood, who had then learned ASL, outperformed those who appropriated ASL as a first language at the same age. Moreover, the performance of the latter declined with increasing age of appropriation. Similarly, children who had otitis at age 1 have identifiable language deficits at age 9 (Hyltenstam & Abrahamson, 2003). The authors consider that these data support the notion of an optimal period beyond which a natural language can no longer be normally acquired. In the study by Rönnberg et al. (2004), only the subgroup of subjects who started sign language at birth (as opposed to those who started at primary school) evinced a clear left-hemisphere dominance for a working memory task performed in sign language, in line with the findings for working memory in spoken language. Those who started learning sign language at school seemed to apply explicit treatment to the visuospatial processing involved in generating the virtual spatial array needed to complete working memory tasks in sign language, rather than handling it implicitly as the early bilinguals did. The authors suggest that the difference in their results for the two groups might reflect an age-of-acquisition effect. As delay in exposure to a first language increases, accuracy of grammaticality judgments decreases, independent of ASL syntactic structure. “The onset of first language acquisition affects the ultimate outcome of syntactic knowledge for all

PA

©

JO

HN

E G

B

J N E

AM

R P

I

NS

P

O O

L B U

H IS

S F

I

NG

C

OM

P

Y N A

Chapter 4. Ultimate attainment in L2 proficiency 

subsequent language acquisition” (Boudreault & Mayberry, 2006: 608). Adults have largely lost the ability to learn a language without reflecting on its structure and have to use alternative mechanisms to learn a second language (DeKeyser, 2000). In Harley and Hart’s (1997) study of students enrolled in L2 early (starting in grade 1) and late (starting in grade 7) immersion programs, analytical language ability (relying on conscious memory) was the only significant predictor of L2 proficiency (tested in grade 11) in the case of late but not early immersion students. Ross and Bever’s (2004) study comparing the sensitive period for language acquisition in two populations of deaf individuals (with familial right- or lefthandedness) found that when both populations are exposed to language in early childhood, comparable levels of proficiency are attained. However, individuals with familial left-handedness show evidence of a shorter sensitive period. Age of acquisition rather than years of experience determined sign language proficiency. This suggests that genetic factors are involved that apply to both handedness and language, and that their expression is sensitive to time of first language exposure. Sundara and Polka (2008) have shown that advanced early L2 learners (i.e., L2 exposure onset by 5 or 6 years of age) discriminated /d/-initial syllables in Canadian French (dental /d/) and Canadian English (alveolar /d/) in a way consistent with a merged category, whereas simultaneous bilinguals were at least as good at discriminating between them as unilingual speakers. This suggests that, at least at the phonological level, simultaneous bilinguals acquire each language as unilinguals do, whereas early L2 learners do not. Even by 6 months of age, well before word meanings are acquired, infants’ phonetic perception has been altered by exposure to a specific language, which results in language-specific prototypes that assist infants in organizing speech sounds into categories (Kuhl et al., 1992). The claim is not that adults cannot master foreign languages, but that their achievement is mainly the result of conscious learning and conscious control of their output. After many years of total immersion in an exclusively L2-speaking environment, without contact with speakers of L1, some, possibly most, of the components of implicit linguistic competence may eventually be automatized. As Hyltenstam and Abrahamson (2001) point out, even late learners can achieve native-like behavior for individual tasks, structures, or domains. Nevertheless, published studies have still not identified a single adult learner who is indistinguishable from a native speaker in all relevant aspects of the L2.

PA

©



JO

HN

E G

B

J N E

AM

R P

I

NS

P

O O

L B U

H IS

S F

I

NG

C

OM

P

Y N A

The optimal period is restricted to implicit linguistic competence

The optimal period applies to the normal acquisition of language, which results in implicit linguistic competence. But language can also be learned, using cerebral

 Declarative and procedural determinants of second languages

mechanisms other than those used to acquire implicit linguistic competence, and resulting in conscious knowledge about form, namely explicit metalinguistic knowledge that can be mastered to a high degree of proficiency. Its controlled use can be sufficiently speeded up to be perceived as native-like – as is the case with the L1 of intelligent genetic dysphasic individuals (Paradis & Gopnik, 1997). The use of declarative memory to compensate for gaps in L2 implicit competence is reflected in the considerable inter-individual variability in attainment between late L2 learners – compared to considerable inter-individual homogeneity in the acquisition of the native language(s) – the greater reliance on working memory, the role of education, the success in semantics relative to syntax and phonology, the success in off-line relative to on-line tasks, the decline with age, and in general, the ease with L1 vs. the difficulty with L2. 

O O

Inter-individual variability in attainment

S F NG

C

OM

P

Y N A

Acquisition via procedural memory is available to everyone up to about 5 years of age, after which the use of procedural memory to acquire language rapidly declines and individuals rely on declarative memory. Note that the decline in the use of procedural memory when appropriating a second language is not necessarily due to a deficiency in procedural memory for language per se (though it may be at least partially so), but possibly also to a number of psychological factors such as the propensity to use general learning ability (as applied to the many other things learned from that age on), the presence of the L1 system and the general difficulty of acquiring new habits of the same general kind as existing ones (e.g., for a tennis champion to acquire badminton skills), which drives the speaker to continue to rely on L1 procedures when generating L2 sentences (at each level of language structure) and to apply L1 meanings to quasi-equivalent L2 lexical items. Some implicit linguistic competence in L2 can probably be acquired in certain aspects of linguistic structure (syntax, morphology, phonology, in that order of probability) though not completely at any level. This is one reason why there is great variability in individual success at learning a second language. By contrast, any one without severe mental retardation and with an intact FOXP2 gene acquires a first language fully and easily, with hardly any inter-individual variation. Learning a second language is dependent on general intellectual capacity – and is positively correlated with the individual’s IQ (Mayberry, Taylor, & Obrien-Malone, 1995), another source of variance. Extensive practice over long periods of time may help with the acquisition of some components of the grammar and speed up the controlled use of the rest. Some rare L2 speakers may achieve native-like proficiency (i.e., mastery of phonology, morphology, syntax and the lexicon) but by other means (cf. Rieber & Vetter, 1995).

PA

©

JO

HN

E G

B

J N E

AM

R P

I

NS

P

L B U

H IS

I

Chapter 4. Ultimate attainment in L2 proficiency 

As Hyltenstam and Abrahamsson (2003) point out, adult learners do not acquire a second language from mere exposure but learn it indirectly. Young learners perform more similarly to each other whereas older learners show greater variation in their rate of appropriation and their ultimate attainment in their L2 (Marinova-Todd, Marshall, & Snow, 2000, 2001). Speakers process a late-learned second language differently than their native language and the resulting performance is rarely (if ever) the same. Even if their second-language production and comprehension were observably identical to those of L1 speakers, the fact that they use speeded-up control rather than automatic processing would be evidence that, after a certain age, one has to resort to an altogether different processing mechanism because the acquisition of implicit competence is no longer possible (or extremely time-consuming and inefficient). Whereas procedural memories are more resistant to loss over time than declarative memories (which are especially vulnerable in aging), procedural memory for language acquisition becomes less efficient and takes longer with increasing age – for a number of reasons, including L1 entrenchment as discussed below. Even when the second language is acquired at a very early age, differences between the processing and/or representation of L1 and L2 have been reported. Perani et al. (2003), for instance, found that bilingual speakers who had been exposed to the second language from the age of 3 (and who had used both languages in daily life ever since, with comparable levels of proficiency in the comprehension of both) showed less extensive cerebral activation during lexical search and retrieval in the language acquired first, suggesting that additional resources were recruited within a dedicated network when generating words in L2. (See Mack, 1984, 1986, for experimental evidence of differences in relatively early bilinguals.) Even individuals with a very young onset of L2 experience diverge at the level of fine linguistic detail from native speakers (Singleton, 2001). With respect to some measures of phonetic performance, “extremely early exposure” is required to perform like native unilinguals (Mack, 2003). There are at least two possible basic reasons for deviance from the native norm in early L2 acquirers: (1) the quality of the L2 spoken in the child’s environment (parents, relatives, sometimes a whole immigrant community), which becomes the norm for the acquirer (just as students in Montreal immersion classes in the sixties picked up the pidgin of their peers4); (2) generalization across the two language

PA

©

JO

HN

E G

B

J N E

AM

R P

I

NS

P

O O

L B U

H IS

S F

I

NG

C

OM

P

Y N A


The usefulness of form-focused instruction, as discussed in Chapter 3, is exemplified in the success of the more recent introduction of explicit grammar in immersion classes where, before, high levels of fluency were accompanied by notoriously poor accuracy (Lyster, 1990, 2004; Spada, 1997; Day & Shapson, 2001; Jean, 2005).

 Declarative and procedural determinants of second languages

subsystems and influence of the items first acquired and most often activated on the corresponding items in the other language. The undeniable influence of social and educational variables on L2 appropriation at a later age stems from a fundamental neurobiological phenomenon, namely the apparent gradual (or not so gradual) loss of the ability to acquire language incidentally, to use procedural memory so that it would become available for automatic use. This inability is compensated for by relying on conscious learning, using declarative memory. The numerous causes of inter-individual differences in attainment are a direct result of a number of internal and external factors5 to which the acquisition of a native language is impervious. 

S F

The impact of working memory and level of education

P

Y N A

In tasks that tap working memory and episodic memory (i.e., that rely on declarative memory), there is an observed performance decline with age, whereas on tasks involving procedural memory, age-related effects, when observed, are comparatively mild (Birdsong, 2006). Yet, it is on tasks involving procedural memory par excellence (e.g., pronunciation, but also automatic (hence systematic) use of all aspects of the grammar), that late L2 learners do worst. This again suggests, consonant with the reported “relatively low degree of automaticity in L2” (Birdsong, 2006: 29), that some of the language processes that are sustained by procedural memory in L1 are dependent (at least in part) on declarative memory in L2 – especially when one considers that “the entorhinal cortex and hippocampus appear to incur greater annual shrinkage than other areas of the brain” (Birdsong, 2006: 31). “This decrease is linked to age-related cognitive deficits across domains such as working memory and executive function” (p. 33), both involved in explicit tasks. Declines in the anterior cingulate cortex (p. 33) are related to problems with conscious control. It is noteworthy that “executive control processes associated with prefrontal and cingulate cortices can operate only on consciously perceived stimuli” (Dehaene & Changeux, 2004: 1152). These data would suggest that adults have recourse to declarative memory to learn (rather

PA

©

JO

HN

E G

B

J N E

AM

R P

I

NS

P

O O

L B U

H IS

I

NG

C

OM


Internal: Cognitive style, motivation, attitude, aptitude, IQ, level of education. External: age at exposure, degree of exposure relative to L1, degree of exposure to L1 during the appropriation of L2, high-/low-prestige status of L2 in the community, ethnic and political factors associated with L2, structural distance between the languages, quality of the L2 spoken in the individual’s environment. Internal and external factors interact in that, for instance, the sociolinguistic and political status of L2 will affect an individual’s attitude and motivation. The level of education, imposed by external circumstances, nevertheless has an impact on the individual’s ability to learn, in that it develops reasoning capacity.

Chapter 4. Ultimate attainment in L2 proficiency 

than acquire) a second language, and that this task becomes more difficult with age as the underlying cerebral structures that sustain declarative functions wane. In a pilot experimental investigation, Fehringer and Fry (2007) found that highly proficient German speakers of English produced a significantly higher overall rate of hesitation phenomena in their second language than in their first (p = .000). The difference was most noticeable in the types of phenomena (repetition, corrections, expansions) that would indicate extra planning demands, as shown by the increased necessity for reformulation in L2. This is taken to indicate that an additional cognitive load was imposed by working memory in L2. The tasks that showed significant differences between languages are the ones that demand most attention. In L1, greater production of optional complementizer phrases (whose embedding is considered a particularly demanding task) is significantly correlated (p = .033) with fewer hesitation phenomena (suggesting automatic processing) whereas in L2 the correlation is not significant. Working memory scores were significantly higher in L1 than in L2 (p = .005). To account for the interference from L1, which plays an important role in constraining the native-like performance of L2 speakers, the authors surmise that speakers with poorer working memory resources for L2 are likely to find it difficult to control their language subsystems: the native language that is supposed to be suppressed might interfere with the second language that is selected for use. Factors other than working memory that may have influenced the results, such as depletion of energy and anxiety are also indicative of extra reliance on consciously controlled processes (Dewaele, 2007). Fehringer and Fry observe that their subjects’ L2 is not quite the same as their native language in spite of their extremely high level of ability in L2 grammar. They conclude that, in fact, L2 users rarely reach a level of fluency approaching that of native speakers. Speakers are said to need to “work harder” in order to display ease and fluency in their second language; L2 working memory may lack sufficient attentional resources. Interestingly, effort and attention are associated with conscious, non-automatic processes. Level of education is often cited as a significant predictor of high proficiency achievement in L2. The advantage gained by the study of L2 as a foreign language prior to immersion in the L2 environment is noticeable even after decades of exposure (Urponen, 2004). Instruction has a direct influence on learning, not on acquisition (cf. Harley & Hart, 1997). Instruction benefits proficiency, but with a focus on explicit learning (Bialystok, 1997).

PA

©



JO

HN

E G

B

J N E

AM

R P

I

NS

P

O O

L B U

H IS

S F

I

NG

C

OM

P

Y N A

The success in semantics relative to syntax and phonology

In an ERP study, Sanders and Neville (2003) show that native speakers and late bilinguals process words similarly, whereas syntactic processing is strongly

 Declarative and procedural determinants of second languages

impacted by age of acquisition. They conclude that these findings support the proposal that subsystems within language display varying degrees of plasticity. Indeed, what they show is that implicit systems subserved by procedural memory (here, syntax) are affected by age of acquisition, whereas explicit semantic systems subserved by declarative memory (here, words) are not. Hahne (2001) also reports an ERP experiment, in which native Russian speakers who had learned German as a second language differed significantly from native listeners in various aspects. For semantically correct sentences, the N400 negativity was more pronounced, extended to frontal electrode sites, and was delayed by about 100 ms in the L2 group, as compared to the native German controls. Moreover, the difference between correct and incorrect sentences was much smaller in the L2 group. Thus, with regard to semantic aspects, the ERP differences were only quantitative. However, with regard to syntactic aspects, the differences were qualitatively different: Phrase structure violations elicited an early negativity in comparison to correct sentences in the native listeners, an effect interpreted as reflecting automaticity. There was no such modulation of the anterior negativity in the L2 group, suggesting a deficiency in automaticity. As in previous studies with Japanese and French speakers (Hahne & Friederici, 2001), language learners did not process syntactic categories in the same way as native listeners did. In a lexical decision task in which target words were primed by adjectives that were correctly or incorrectly inflected for gender (the morphosyntactic condition) or by adjectives that were semantically associated or not associated with the target word (the semantic condition), Scherag et al. (2004) found that native German speakers gained from both morpho-syntactically and semantically congruent primes. In contrast, long-term English immigrants to Germany did not benefit from morphosyntactic primes, whereas their semantic priming effects were similar to those of the native German speakers. Also worthy of note is the fact that, in addition, the L2 participants’ overall processing time was longer, another indication of reliance on non-automatic processes. The authors interpret their data as suggesting that the full acquisition of at least some syntactic functions may be restricted to limited periods in life, whereas the elaboration of semantic functions is based on associative learning mechanisms that permit learning throughout life.

PA

©

JO

HN

E G

B

J N E

AM

R P

I

NS

P

O O

L B U

H IS

S F

I

NG

C

OM

P

Y N A

 The decline in L2 performance with increasing age According to Birdsong (2006), a review of the literature reveals that for late L2 learners there is either (1) a random array of scores or (2) a persistent decline in performance with increasing age of appropriation. The first is consistent with declarative learning in general: in contrast with native language acquisition, individuals differ considerably in various domains of cognitive ability (including explicit language learning). The second corresponds to the observed growing

Chapter 4. Ultimate attainment in L2 proficiency 

difficulty of using declarative memory as age increases (associated with the reported waning of hippocampal structures and the anterior cingulate cortex). Because declarative memory abilities decline more with age than procedural memory functions (Birdsong, 2005, and citations therein), to the extent that L2 is subserved by declarative memory, L2 should decline more than L1 in advanced aging, as control becomes less effective. We may expect elderly speakers to show a decline in fluency, accuracy and phonology in the production of L2, of which they may be aware as they hear their own output – since production is more sensitive to decline than comprehension (and perception, in the case of a foreign accent, as errors of lexical stress application or phoneme production are noticed after faulty production).

Y N A

S F

P M In the face of (1) the considerable difficulty in acquiring a second language in C Oas effortadulthood and (2) the fact that two or more languages can be acquired G (the earlier, the lessly as one when the child is exposed to them at a very early age N I that the time conbetter, i.e., from the crib), it is not unreasonable to consider H S straints imposed on the acquisition of native implicitI linguistic competence – as L 1978; Mayberry, 1993; demonstrated by studies of L1 acquisition delayB (Lebrun, Mayberry et al., 2002; Boudreault & Mayberry, – must also apply to the PinUa2006), acquisition of implicit linguistic competence second and third language. N Sat appropriating a second language and The fact that young children areIslow need a longer period to achieveM levels that adolescents and adults can achieve A J faster, even though they tend to surpass adults in the long run (Nikolov & Mihaljevic Djigunovic, 2006), E N suggests that young children acquire the language B (incidental acquisition takes time) whereas adults, to a great extent, learn it (they N of accuracy by means of explicit learning, which is faster, but reach a certainH level this knowledge J O is limited and is not converted into competence; nor, most of the time, is©much competence acquired in parallel, as learners continue to rely on

 The ease of appropriation and use of L1 vs. L2

PA

E G

R P

O O

6

declarative memory). Children acquire their native language(s) long before they have any explicit knowledge of language. They are not more efficient L2 learners than adults, but they are more efficient L2 acquirers. Even though they are slower at acquiring a second language – implicit acquisition “is slow because it needs a large sample” (N.C. Ellis, 2005: 315) – they eventually internalize it better than adults. Unlike young children, adults find it very difficult to incidentally acquire the competence


“There is enough evidence to show that child second language acquirers are indeed superior [to adult learners] in terms of ultimate ability” (Patkowski, 1990: 73).

 Declarative and procedural determinants of second languages

that allows them to use language constructions automatically. “Native-like proficiency is almost never acquired, and second-language processing is slower” (Toppelberg, 1997: 1328). Some adult L2 learners “are impervious to years of input that evidences tens of thousands of exemplars of high-frequency form-function patterns” (N.C. Ellis, 2005: 322). Most adults’ faster appropriation is the result of the use of speeded-up metalinguistic knowledge. As Ellis (2005) reminds us, accuracy and fluency are not necessarily an indication of implicit linguistic competence. In Montrul et al.’s (2006) study on the use of clitics, early and late bilinguals performed alike (yet late bilinguals were more inaccurate than early bilinguals at rejecting sentences in some conditions, and there was a clear advantage for early bilinguals with clitic left dissociations) on an off-line task (grammaticality judgment). On an on-line task, with all sentence types containing clitics and objects in sentence-initial position, the reaction times of the late bilinguals were slower than those of the early bilinguals (whose RTs did not differ from the unilingual control group’s). The slower responses of late bilinguals are consonant with the use of controlled rather than automatic processing, hence a lack of implicit competence for those items. Montrul and collaborators note that early bilinguals appear to have more native-like knowledge of clitics than late bilinguals, even when they have low-to-intermediate proficiency in the language. According to the authors, this may be due to the fact that the clitic system was acquired before age 4, as in unilingual children. By contrast, late bilinguals use more metalinguistic knowledge. “The early bilinguals are more accurate and faster on clitic-left dissociation, as if their linguistic knowledge were automatic” (p. 227). Indeed, the hallmark of automaticity is systematic accuracy conjoined with speedy processing. In a study by Flege et al. (2006), immigrant children scored lower than natives but higher than adult immigrants, though they still had a detectable accent after 4 years of English-medium schools. Very few of the 57 adult Hungarian-speaking immigrants in DeKeyser’s (2000) study scored within the range of child immigrants on a grammaticality judgment task, and the few who did had high levels of analytical skills (suggesting that they probably used their metalinguistic knowledge).

PA

©

JO

HN

E G

B

J N E

AM

R P

I

NS

P

O O

L B U

H IS

S F

I

NG

C

OM

P

Y N A

 You don’t learn L2 the way you acquired L1, do you? How come? Whatever one’s opinion about the existence and the nature of an optimal period for language acquisition, one thing is clear and does not seem controversial: Adult L2 learners do not appropriate their L2 in the same way as they acquired their L1. Everybody admits that it is hard work. In addition to transferring structures from L1, learners of a second language have a very hard time automatizing their L2. Surely they would if they could. Automatized language is so much more efficient.

Chapter 4. Ultimate attainment in L2 proficiency 

Automatic processing always takes over when it is available: it is faster, effortless, allows the speaker to focus attention elsewhere and tolerates a good deal of noise. So, if the acquisition system were still at learners’ disposal, no doubt they would avail themselves of it. Anyone who immerses himself or herself in a second language environment for months and years manages to learn the language, and possibly, after long practice with controlled speech, manages to acquire a good portion of the language, but does not acquire it directly, from scratch, the way children before four or five years of age do, and rarely all components of language structure. (A tall, blond, blue-eyed colleague, who specializes in child language, used to say how frustrated she was when, after years of Dutch immersion in the Netherlands, and in spite of her high motivation to pass for a native, salespeople in Amsterdam would invariably answer her Dutch queries in English.) As suggested by Seidenberg and Zevin (2006), “computational and biological accounts play complementary roles in understanding at least some major cognitive phenomena” (p. 608), but with respect to first and second language appropriation, the biological account of the roles of procedural and declarative memory cannot be dodged. The computational explanation might clarify how L1 competence interferes with L2 acquisition, but must also account for why a first language cannot be fully acquired after age 6, as shown not only by the few cases of hearing children deprived of language input but also by the numerous deaf children not exposed to sign language early enough (Mayberry, 2006). The onset of language acquisition in early human development dramatically alters the capacity to learn language throughout life (Mayberry & Lock, 2003). I am not speaking of the form of the utterance (foreign accent, interference from L1 and other deviances in morphosyntax and lexical semantics) but of the system used to perform both comprehension and production. Speaking with a foreign accent is not a sign of a lack of automaticity. A deviant phonological and articulatory system could be automatized. But in addition to the contents of the grammar, what makes the appropriation and use of L2 different from L1 is the lack of automaticity and consequent reliance on conscious (albeit possibly considerably speeded up) control of one or more of the components of grammar. The greater the number of components that necessitate control, the slower and less systematic the performance. The most perceptible difference between the grammar of a speaker of L2 and that of a native speaker is the deviance in contents (accent, grammatical errors, inappropriate semantic boundaries of lexical items). Less observable, in very proficient late second language speakers, is the greater reliance on metalinguistic knowledge and control, which results in reduced speed and increased variability (not readily perceived in conversational situations).

PA

©

JO

HN

E G

B

J N E

AM

R P

I

NS

P

O O

L B U

H IS

S F

I

NG

C

OM

P

Y N A

 Declarative and procedural determinants of second languages

The argument that the bilingual’s performance should not be compared to that of unilingual native speakers (Grosjean, 1989, 2008; Cook, 1992; Piller, 2002) is applicable to the contents of language representations (i.e., uni- or bidirectional interference in what is stored as implicit competence), not to the means by which language is represented (i.e., procedurally or declaratively; automatic or controlled).



Optimal period and the right hemisphere

The optimal period is hypothesized to apply to implicit linguistic competence (Paradis, 2004). Implicit linguistic competence is subserved by cortical and subcortical structures of the left hemisphere and areas of the right cerebellum. Unless the various components of verbal communication are distinguished (implicit linguistic competence, metalinguistic knowledge and pragmatics), claims about “language” will necessarily be muddled, as their truth or falsity depends on which component they refer to. Discussions of the critical period hypothesis and the role of the right hemisphere are no exception. Lenneberg (1967) associated the critical period with maturation, as reflected in language lateralization.7 His proposed laterality shift from the right to the left hemisphere was soon shown to be incorrect (Krashen, 1973), and it applies to none of the three main components of verbal communication. Barring early cerebral injury, implicit linguistic competence is sustained by procedural memory in the left hemisphere from the start (i.e., between 1;6 and 2 years of age, when the first two-word constructions appear, before which there was no grammar), irrespective of modality (signed or spoken). At the earliest stages of verbal communication, pragmatics becomes associated with speech sounds; and as linguistic pragmatics develops, it continues to be sustained by right-hemisphere structures. Language awareness, sustained by declarative memory, does not undergo progressive lateralization either. Two conditions will result in the absence of development of implicit linguistic competence: (1) a deviant FOXP2 gene8 or (2) the absence of language

PA

©

JO

HN

E G

B

J N E

AM

R P

I

NS

P

O O

L B U

H IS

S F

I

NG

C

OM

P

Y N A


“The limiting factors postulated are cerebral immaturity at the one end and termination of a state of organizational plasticity linked with laterality of [language] function at the other end of the critical period” (Lenneberg, 1967: 176). 
Leading (among other things) to genetic dysphasia in which many morphological and phonological aspects of implicit linguistic competence are compromised and are made up for by the use of explicitly learned metalinguistic knowledge.

Chapter 4. Ultimate attainment in L2 proficiency 

interaction at the age during which implicit linguistic competence normally develops.9 As we saw in Chapter 3, two factors may conspire to make acquiring implicit competence in a second language in adulthood difficult: (1) age, leading to the use of declarative memory when learning anything new, and (2) the fact that implicit competence has already been established along the parameters of L1. The evidence (both the end-age of language impairment subsequent to righthemisphere lesion and the notion of gradual language lateralization itself) that was originally the rationale for setting the end point of a critical period for language acquisition at 12 years of age has been shown to be invalid. It is clear that there is no critical period that ends at puberty. If there is a critical period, it terminates much earlier (and it has nothing to do with lateralization). Yet, many authors continue to use Lenneberg’s (1967) definition, especially when arguing against the existence of a critical period (Marinova-Todd et al., 2000; Komarova & Nowak, 2001; Flege et al., 2006); and hence, they include individuals aged from 6 to 12 years (sometimes even up to age 14, e.g., Flege et al., 2006) in the “early L2 acquisition onset group” in contrast to individuals older than 12 in the “late L2 onset group.” Both groups contain individuals who have passed the incidental acquisition age.10 As a result, children who were 6 when they arrived in their new country and still had detectable accents after 3 or 5 years of residence in an English environment are considered to provide evidence inconsistent with the critical period hypothesis (Flege et al., 2006). Two reasons may jointly account for their accents: (1) they were exposed to the accented L2 of their parents, relatives and friends, and (2) they were exposed to the L2 after the age of 6 years. The second reason may be in effect even in the absence of the first: Munro and Mann (2005) report that a foreign accent is perceived in speakers who started immersion in L2 from about age 5 on, after which the degree of perceived accent increases with age at onset of L2 exposure. In a study by Flege, Yeni-Komshian, and Liu (1999), the foreign accents of the participants grew stronger as age of immersion in an L2 environment (e.g., immigration) increased. While grammatical scores also decreased steadily, unlike

PA

©

JO

HN

E G

B

J N E

AM

R P

I

NS

P

O O

L B U

H IS

S F

I

NG

C

OM

P

Y N A


A normal FOXP2 gene and reliance on procedural memory are necessary but, in order to acquire a language (first or second), sufficient interaction opportunities are also required. 
In a study conducted by Palij (1990), early bilinguals (L2 acquired before 6) did not differ from native speakers on any of the measures, but both differed consistently from groups who had appropriated L2 after the age of 6. The patterns of differences among the groups are clear and striking. Native and early bilinguals differ significantly from late learners on all tests ( p < .0001). Palij concludes that these differences are important and should be considered when selecting subjects for language experiments.

 Declarative and procedural determinants of second languages

accent, they were influenced by other variables, such as extent of education received in the L2 environment. This supports the notion that pronunciation of a second language is not only subject to an earlier onset deadline but also more difficult to control than other aspects of language structure, such as syntax. However, grammatical scores too show increased reliance on declarative memory (as evidenced by the influence of education) with increasing age of first exposure.



Evidence adduced against a critical period

Some adult second language learners are reported to be able to attain native proficiency in some aspects of language or on some language tasks. Some learners whose exposure to L2 occurs after age 12 are still able to acquire an L2 accent that is perceived as native by native speakers. Neufeld’s work is often cited in support of native-like attainment in the pronunciation of a foreign language. Yet, as the author acknowledges, not only is it the outcome of a “highly artificial learning situation” (Neufeld, 1977: 48), but the learners’ performance does not correspond to what can be considered as speaking a second language without a detectable foreign accent. Rather, it is an exercise in psittacism, a task some species of parrots and myna birds are able to perform. The participants were trained to repeat one-to-eight-syllable stock phrases. They were specifically told not to expect to learn their meaning or grammatical rules. All this notwithstanding, out of 20 rated participants, the production of only 3 for Japanese and 1 for Chinese was judged to be native-like (in spite of the fact that the judges might have expected a majority of native samples, having been told beforehand that, “although improbable,” many samples they were to hear, and conceivably all, might be non-native (p. 53)). The adults in Neufeld’s (1980) experiments did not acquire phonology (as claimed in the paper’s title). All they acquired was the ability to reproduce specific strings of sounds (corresponding to Japanese sentences to the extent that native speakers thought they were spoken by Japanese). An acquired phonology would entail the ability to use phonological rules (not just to imitate sounds) in extemporaneous sentence production, a task the subjects were absolutely unable to do, since they could not speak Japanese. They would not have been able to use in novel contexts the phonological rules involved in the passages they could imitate (albeit perfectly). Pronunciation is a skill that most L2 learners find difficult to integrate with the simultaneous selection of morphosyntactic rules and lexical items (Lamendella, 1979). The fact that the amount of phonological training has a significant positive effect on the pronunciation of a group of university students learning an L2 shows

PA

©

JO

HN

E G

B

J N E

AM

R P

I

NS

P

O O

L B U

H IS

S F

I

NG

C

OM

P

Y N A

Chapter 4. Ultimate attainment in L2 proficiency 

that adults are able to learn to control their production of L2 speech sounds. This, however, needs to be integrated with the other components of grammar into implicit linguistic competence and automatized. Note that the conditions of Neufeld’s (1979) study did not replicate the learning situation of young children (as claimed by Marinova-Todd et al., 2000). The students were not involved in communication with native speakers but received specific phonological training. “Subjects’ performance [in the 1977–1979 studies] involved imitation only, with no creative use of language” (Neufeld, 1979: 234). Neufeld admits that the studies do not provide “sufficient evidence to definitely reject the ‘strong version’ of the critical period hypothesis” (p. 235). Some studies claim that with short, intensive training, it is possible to acquire a second language’s phonological contrasts. But as Sebastián-Gallés and Bosch (2001) point out, in spite of a 10- to 20-percent increase in performance on identification or discrimination tasks, performance does not reach the native speakers’ level. The improvement likely reflects controlled performance, in which case it would be additional evidence in favor of a biologically based critical (i.e., optimal) period. The case studies reviewed by Nikolov and Mihaljevic Djigunovic (2006) document that all the post-puberty learners who were frequently mistaken for native speakers definitely strove for unaccented proficiency and worked actively to master their new language (Bongaerts et al., 1997; Ioup et al., 1994). Individuals who have been found to successfully attain ultimate native-like proficiency are reported to have been highly motivated to pass for L2 native speakers (Moyer, 1999) and to have worked on their language development consciously (Nikolov, 2000; Moyer, 2004). The many pieces of evidence from a wide array of different domains pointing to increased explicit processing in the second language are too numerous to be ignored. They can no longer be swept under the carpet. Any theory of second language appropriation must be able to account for them.

PA

©



JO

HN

E G

B

J N E

AM

R P

I

NS

P

O O

L B U

H IS

S F

I

NG

C

OM

P

Y N A

Factors invoked in lieu of a neurobiological critical period to account for poor performance in L2 are actually the consequences of an optimal period

The various phenomena proposed to explain the differences between first and second language ultimate attainment play a role only because, for a number of genetically programmed cerebral events, procedural memory, which allows language to be acquired, becomes far less available after an optimal period. The consequent reliance on declarative memory renders the appropriation of language

 Declarative and procedural determinants of second languages

contingent upon the various factors suggested by authors as being responsible (instead of a neural-based reason) for arduous and eventually poor attainment.  Effects due to age are a consequence of brain processes The observed age-related phenomena probably result from the interaction of multiple causes (Singleton, 1989). “Factors other than a biologically determined C[ritical] P[eriod] play a role in the variability of the ultimate attainment of older learners” (Marinova-Todd et al., 2001: 174). These alternatives to a neurological account – motivation, explicit language instruction, the very knowledge of another language (Singleton, 2001) – become relevant only because of the biologically determined advent of declarative memory on which late learners must rely to compensate for their lost ability to incidentally acquire L2 as young children do. Variability in learning is caused by factors intrinsic to declarative memory (working memory functions, IQ, focused attention, executive control, etc.). Adults may eventually achieve near-native (or even native-like) proficiency, though not necessarily full implicit linguistic competence the way early bilinguals do. The difference is not only, or necessarily, one of content (deviant items incorporated in the grammar at any level) but of lack of automatic use of all aspects of language. L2 attainment continues to negatively correlate with age of learning (Birdsong & Molis, 2001). At the end of early childhood, learners no longer rely almost exclusively on procedural memory for incidental language acquisition and start learning a second language explicitly, relying on declarative memory. If the age of onset of learning is further postponed until middle-age, declarative memory, on which learning relies, gradually declines. Hence, as one gets older, not only has reliance on incidental acquisition long ceased, but explicit L2 learning becomes progressively more difficult (as does learning in any domain). The aging process is thus doubly responsible for lack of success (or the increased difficulty of attaining it), (1) because of the end of the period when language can be acquired easily, and (2) because of the decline with age of the means by which learners can compensate (i.e., the decay of the hippocampal-system-dependent declarative memory). Both processes are determined by brain maturation, physiology, and genetically built-in obsolescence. As with any genetically programmed process, variability owing to differing experiential conditions is possible, within limits. Marinova-Todd et al. (2000) rightly point out that “myriad factors are involved in successful learning,” but then add: “many of which may be correlated with age but have nothing to do with changes in the brain” (p. 24). First, let us remember that these numerous factors are not involved in successful L1 and early L2 acquisition (except for the opportunity to interact with speakers of the language). The

PA

©

JO

HN

E G

B

J N E

AM

R P

I

NS

P

O O

L B U

H IS

S F

I

NG

C

OM

P

Y N A

Chapter 4. Ultimate attainment in L2 proficiency 

reason why they become relevant is because, at a certain age (and to this extent, age is a factor, and age effects have to do with changes in the brain), declarative memory becomes available (and this represents a change in the physiological properties of the brain) and individuals tend to rely increasingly on conscious learning. At the same time, incidental learning ceases to be efficient. To that extent, one can say that there is a period (from about age 2 to about age 5) during which acquisition relies on one cerebral entity (procedural memory); after that, acquisition becomes less efficient, at successive periods for the various components of implicit linguistic competence, until about adolescence. Meanwhile, the individual compensates by consciously learning and controlling the use of those aspects of L2 that are no longer acquired incidentally. From then on, the factors involved in learning come into play and those involved in general cognitive capacities (working memory, IQ, etc.) become relevant, resulting in considerable variability in rate and degree of success. Among the factors that typically lead to native-like proficiency in L2, aptitude, meaning the ability to learn explicitly, becomes one of the major variables. The fact that cognitive aptitude strongly correlates with success of L2 learning (Ehrman & Oxford, 1995) again suggests that high attainment in L2 is the result of learning rather than acquisition. All these factors are associated with learning performance in any knowledge domain subserved by declarative memory. The brain is responsible for the aging process and its consequences, the availability and decline of procedural memory for the acquisition of implicit linguistic competence, and the availability and decline of declarative memory (modulated by its inherent constraints on learning: working memory capacity, aptitude, attitude, motivation, etc., which vary across individuals) for learning foreign languages. We might therefore agree with Marinova-Todd et al. (2000) that, literally, “age does not influence language learning” (p. 28), at least until declarative memory declines with advanced age, but it does considerably influence language acquisition. As in every domain involving genetic makeup, brain maturation and concomitant cognitive development, and experience, we cannot make absolute claims about age onset for a specific phenomenon. Many factors do interact, but within limits, and outcomes fall within a certain range. One may then consider any statement about chronological age as referring to a norm (i.e., the vast majority, with some standard deviation in either direction). Such limits apply to the availability of procedural memory for acquiring a language, whether first or second. It is true that a number of age-related factors are at work (Singleton, 2001). These age effects that are assumed not to rely on neurolinguistic arguments are in fact caused by neurophysiological phenomena such as the diverging development of procedural and declarative memory that sustain language functions: (1) The availability of procedural memory for language acquisition gradually declines

PA

©

JO

HN

E G

B

J N E

AM

R P

I

NS

P

O O

L B U

H IS

S F

I

NG

C

OM

P

Y N A

 Declarative and procedural determinants of second languages

from around age 5; (2) from then on, factors associated with declarative memory gradually enter into play; (3) through adulthood and old age, the gradual deterioration of declarative memory negatively affects second language learning and use. The uncontroversial difference between appropriating a native language (or two) and further languages after the age of about 5 years is determined by the timeframe of the availability of procedural memory for implicit linguistic competence and the advent of declarative memory. It may be modulated by a number of factors,11 such as motivation (Schumann, 1998), attention, effort, aptitude,12 education level (Urponen, 2004), working memory capacity (McDonald, 2006), verbal analytical ability (Harley & Hart, 1997; DeKeyser, 2000), and environmental dynamics (Flege et al., 1999). Ironically, these factors become relevant to the appropriation13 of L2 (though not the acquisition of L1) precisely because of reliance on different memory systems when acquiring L1 (procedural memory for implicit linguistic competence) and learning a subsequent language (declarative memory for all aspects of language, including metalinguistic knowledge and some features of pragmatics). The deadline for the incidental acquisition of implicit linguistic competence varies with each component module. There is not one optimal period14 but several, respectively for prosody, phonology, inflectional morphology, and syntax (Weber-Fox & Neville, 1996, 2001), in this order of early termination. This only partly coincides with the order of acquisition, some aspects of word order being generally acquired before inflectional morphology, but more complex aspects of syntax after some features of agreement (Tavano, Fabritiis, & Fabbro, 2005). McDonald (2006) proposes “inadequate processing speed” (p. 381) as an explanation for the poor grammaticality judgments of late second language learners, as opposed to their being beyond the critical period for language acquisition. Slow

PA

JO

HN

E G

B

J N E

AM

R P

I

NS

P

O O

L B U

H IS

S F

I

NG

C

OM

P

Y N A


These factors, which are generally invoked as being responsible for the difference between acquiring L1 and L2 in arguments against a critical period, are not relevant when acquiring one or more languages before the age of 5 years. They only come into play when L2 has to be learned.

©


All children without severe mental defects have the aptitude to acquire, and do acquire, the languages to which they are exposed and in which they interact. 
The word “appropriation” is used here throughout because (1) whatever is said is valid for both acquisition and learning, and (2) it is difficult to ascertain by mere behavioral criteria whether what has been appropriated has been acquired or learned, and if acquired, whether it was acquired incidentally from the start or subsequent to a long period of explicit processing from which competence was gradually abstracted – as discussed in Chapter 3. 
Meaning that the period during which Z can be acquired does not start before X months and ends at Y years of age.

Chapter 4. Ultimate attainment in L2 proficiency 

processing suggests that they use controlled metalinguistic knowledge instead of automatic implicit competence. The use of automatic processing is preferred whenever it is available. If late second language learners use controlled processing, it means that automatic competence is not available. The inadequate processing speed is a result of a period after which procedural memory for language acquisition is no longer efficient. Thus again, the explanation proposed in lieu of a critical period to account for late learners’ failure to appropriate a second language the way children do happens to be the necessary use of compensatory strategies as a result of an optimal period for language acquisition.  Native language entrenchment

S F

P

Y N A

MacWhinney (2005) emphasizes the extent to which a second language speaker’s repeated use of L1 leads to its ongoing entrenchment. As he notes, this entrenchment operates differentially across linguistic areas, with the strongest effect occurring in output phonology (i.e., the most implicit of language processes) and the least in the area of vocabulary (i.e., the explicit component of language), for which new learning continues to occur lifelong. Seidenberg and Zevin (2006) note that “acquiring language early in life seems patently easier than learning it later” (p. 595). They propose that interference due to increasing entrenchment of L1 provides a basis for the decline in plasticity associated with the closing of the critical period for language acquisition. According to these authors, the loss of plasticity associated with this phenomenon seems to be specifically related to the capacity to generalize. However, no correlation with any specific cognitive handicap has been found in individuals with genetic dysphasia. Although these individuals are unable to acquire the simplest regular rules of inflectional morphology, such as marking the plural on regular nouns and forming the past tense of regular verbs in English (Ullman & Gopnik, 1994), forming regular compounds in Greek (Dalalakis, 1999), or rendaku in Japanese (Fukuda & Fukuda, 1999), they do not necessarily show such deficits in cognitive domains other than language. It thus appears that generalizations in language are independent of a non-domain-specific capacity to generalize (consonant with the taskspecificity of procedural memory). Seidenberg and Zevin (2006) remark that “PDP networks have not, as yet, incorporated facts about neurological development” (p. 597). One piece of evidence that the rapid acquisition of language with gradual loss of capacity to acquire other languages is “tied up to biological development on a maturational timetable” (p. 606) comes precisely from the coincidental emergence of declarative memory. The concept of entrenchment, which was the result of considering the phenomena computationally rather than biologically, may account for what

PA

©

JO

HN

E G

B

J N E

AM

R P

I

NS

P

O O

L B U

H IS

I

NG

C

OM

 Declarative and procedural determinants of second languages

and how Parallel Distributed Processing computers learn, but when it comes to humans learning language, biological facts cannot be excluded from the equation. The involvement of cerebellum and basal ganglia versus hippocampal and mesial temporal lobe structures in subserving, respectively, procedural and declarative systems cannot be ignored. A small system of artificial grammar rules may be syntactically instantiated by the adult speaker in a way that strongly resembles native-like sentence processing (Friederici et al., 2002), but L2 processing requires the automatic (i.e., native-like) processing of several independent systems, including a large set of complex rules. Vocabulary and basic word order may be acquired whereas relatively more complex structures may not be so readily acquired (see Yokoyama et al.’s (2006) and Suh et al.’s (2007) studies, discussed in the next chapter). If Seidenberg and Zevin’s computational account turned out to be the sole explanation of why the acquisition of a second language is so difficult, it would be a justification for why the use of declarative memory becomes necessary and would thus support the procedural/declarative sequence, showing why a compensatory means (i.e., conscious declarative learning) is needed (i.e., when implicit linguistic memory is entrenched). Irrespective of the applicability of their model, the following effects on language appropriation and loss (p. 602) obtain: Maintenance of L1 interferes with appropriating L2; the continued experience with L1 keeps the language entrenched; proactive interference from L1 affects appropriation of L2; and retroactive interference from L2 causes attrition of L1 if L1 ceases to be used. These effects obtain for both incidental acquisition and conscious learning. In the case of acquisition, it is difficult to modify existing automatized procedures; in the case of learning, one consciously applies the explicit rules inferred from one’s own and other L1 speakers’ output. In the case of L1 entrenchment and attrition, these effects are compatible with the activation threshold hypothesis (Paradis, 2007a). The result is that L2 is learned rather than acquired (at least at first, and its use remains controlled for a long time) before components of the grammar (with or without inappropriate transfer of features from L1) are eventually internalized.

PA

©



JO

HN

E G

B

J N E

AM

R P

I

NS

P

O O

L B U

H IS

S F

I

NG

C

OM

P

Y N A

Conclusion

The optimal period refers to the time during which a second language can be acquired incidentally as implicit linguistic competence that will be used automatically. After that window of opportunity, learners rely on declarative memory, which leads to the various findings listed by Harley and Wang (1997) as needing

Chapter 4. Ultimate attainment in L2 proficiency 

an adequate account: (1) the graduated age of onset differences between children and older learners; (2) the differences between adult onset ages; (3) the contrasting findings concerning initial rate advantages for older learners; (4) the ability of some adult learners, but not others, to achieve native or near-native levels of success; and (5) the variance found among learners in a bilingual setting. The numerous factors generally invoked to account for differences in attainment between the native and a later-learned second language arise from the L2 learners’ switching from reliance on procedural memory – as young children do – to reliance on declarative memory functions. All children without a serious mental deficiency who are exposed to language acquire a native language. Not everyone who has acquired an L1 manages to acquire an L2. The immediate reasons are numerous and varied but all stem from genetically programmed neurobiological events and none plays a significant role in the acquisition of a language during the optimal period. The factors that affect achievements in L2 appropriation are common to all declarative tasks and irrelevant to automatic achievements. One major consequence of relying on declarative memory is a considerable degree of interindividual variability brought about by differences in working memory capacity, education, attitude, and several other internal and external factors. The proactive negative influence of L1 (entrenchment) may be one of the reasons why the appropriation of a second language is difficult and depends on recourse to declarative memory. This would speak to cerebral plasticity (i.e., capacity and resource management). The advent of, and gradual increased reliance on, declarative memory, with a concomitant decreased reliance on procedural memory, would explain why only some types of knowledge (e.g., syntax versus words) show optimal-period-like loss of plasticity. Skills in general (and implicit linguistic competence processing in particular) acquired during their optimal period are more resistant to attrition through disuse than learned material, but the acquisition of skills after their optimal period becomes more difficult with increasing age. Neither puberty nor language lateralization marks the deadline for an optimal period for second language acquisition. Yet, much evidence adduced against an optimal period is predicated on Lenneberg’s (1967) premises. On the one hand, participants in most experiments are late versus later learners rather than early versus late, and tasks tap only a single aspect of language or even a non-linguistic type of performance. In addition, irrespective of the subject population, whether the participants’ performance is speeded-up or automatic is never ascertained. Some authors emphasize overall deficiencies in ultimate attainment, others focus on cases of high achievement on several tasks – but whether one considers

PA

©

JO

HN

E G

B

J N E

AM

R P

I

NS

P

O O

L B U

H IS

S F

I

NG

C

OM

P

Y N A

 Declarative and procedural determinants of second languages

the late second language implicit competence to be half-full or half-empty, the implication is that it is not full. This is not to deny the possibility of reaching (quasi) native-like execution via speeded-up controlled processing. As was mentioned in the previous chapter, this may not be of any practical import, but it is nevertheless essential from a neuroscience perspective. The ultimate observable output may be the same, even though it is achieved by different neurofunctional means.

PA ©

JO

HN

E G

B

J N E

AM

R P I

NS

P

O O

L B U

H IS

S F I

NG

C

OM

P

Y N A

BRAIN MECHANISMS IN EARLY LANGUAGE ACQUISITION (KUHL)

Neuron

Review Brain Mechanisms in Early Language Acquisition Patricia K. Kuhl1,* 1Institute for Learning & Brain Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA *Correspondence: [email protected] DOI 10.1016/j.neuron.2010.08.038

The last decade has produced an explosion in neuroscience research examining young children’s early processing of language. Noninvasive, safe functional brain measurements have now been proven feasible for use with children starting at birth. The phonetic level of language is especially accessible to experimental studies that document the innate state and the effect of learning on the brain. The neural signatures of learning at the phonetic level can be documented at a remarkably early point in development. Continuity in linguistic development from infants’ earliest brain responses to phonetic stimuli is reflected in their language and prereading abilities in the second, third, and fifth year of life, a finding with theoretical and clinical impact. There is evidence that early mastery of the phonetic units of language requires learning in a social context. Neuroscience on early language learning is beginning to reveal the multiple brain systems that underlie the human language faculty. Introduction Neural and behavioral research studies show that exposure to language in the first year of life influences the brain’s neural circuitry even before infants speak their first words. What do we know of the neural architecture underlying infants’ remarkable capacity for language and the role of experience in shaping that neural circuitry? The goal of the review is to explore this topic, focusing on the data and arguments about infants’ neural responses to the consonants and vowels that make up words. Infants’ responses to these basic building blocks of speech—the phonemes used in the world’s languages—provide an experimentally tractable window on the roles of nature and nurture in language acquisition. Comparative studies at the phonetic level have allowed us to examine the uniqueness of humans’ language processing abilities. Moreover, infants’ responses to native and nonnative phonemes have documented the effects of experience as infants are bathed in a specific language. We are also beginning to discover how exposure to two languages early in infancy produces a bilingual brain. We focus here on when and how infants master the sound structure of their language(s), and the role of experience in explaining this important developmental change. As the data attest, infants’ neural commitment to the elementary units of language begins early, and the review showcases the extent to which the tools of modern neuroscience are advancing our understanding of infants’ uniquely human capacity for language. Humans’ capacity for speech and language provoked classic debates on nature versus nurture by strong proponents of nativism (Chomsky, 1959) and learning (Skinner, 1957). While we are far beyond these debates and informed by a great deal of data about infants, their innate predispositions, and their incredible abilities to learn once exposed to natural language (Kuhl, 2009; Saffran et al., 2006), we are still just breaking ground with regard to the neural mechanisms that underlie language development (see Friederici and Wartenburger, 2010; Kuhl and Rivera-Gaxiola, 2008). This decade may represent the dawn of

a golden age with regard to the developmental neuroscience of language in humans. Windows to the Young Brain The last decade has produced rapid advances in noninvasive techniques that examine language processing in young children (Figure 1). They include Electroencephalography (EEG)/ Event-related Potentials (ERPs), Magnetoencephalography (MEG), functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI), and Near-Infrared Spectroscopy (NIRS). Event-related Potentials (ERPs) have been widely used to study speech and language processing in infants and young children (for reviews, see Conboy et al., 2008a; Friederici, 2005; Kuhl, 2004). ERPs, a part of the EEG, reflect electrical activity that is time-locked to the presentation of a specific sensory stimulus (for example, syllables or words) or a cognitive process (recognition of a semantic violation within a sentence or phrase). By placing sensors on a child’s scalp, the activity of neural networks firing in a coordinated and synchronous fashion in open field configurations can be measured, and voltage changes occurring as a function of cortical neural activity can be detected. ERPs provide precise time resolution (milliseconds), making them well suited for studying the high-speed and temporally ordered structure of human speech. ERP experiments can also be carried out in populations who cannot provide overt responses because of age or cognitive impairment. Spatial resolution of the source of brain activation is, however, limited. Magnetoencephalography (MEG) is another brain imaging technique that tracks activity in the brain with exquisite temporal resolution. The SQUID (superconducting quantum interference device) sensors located within the MEG helmet measure the minute magnetic fields associated with electrical currents that are produced by the brain when it is performing sensory, motor, or cognitive tasks. MEG allows precise localization of the neural currents responsible for the sources of the magnetic fields. Cheour et al. (2004) and Imada et al. (2006) used new headtracking methods and MEG to show phonetic discrimination in Neuron 67, September 9, 2010 ª2010 Elsevier Inc. 713

Neuron

Review

Figure 1. Four Techniques Now Used Extensively with Infants and Young Children to Examine Their Responses to Linguistic Signals (From Kuhl and Rivera-Gaxiola, 2008).

newborns and infants in the first year of life. Sophisticated headtracking software and hardware enables investigators to correct for infants’ head movements, and allows the examination of multiple brain areas as infants listen to speech (Imada et al., 2006). MEG (as well as EEG) techniques are completely safe and noiseless. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can be combined with MEG and/or EEG, providing static structural/anatomical pictures of the brain. Structural MRIs show anatomical differences in brain regions across the lifespan, and have recently been used to predict second-language phonetic learning in adults (Golestani and Pallier, 2007). Structural MRI measures in young infants identify the size of various brain structures and these measures have been shown to be related to language abilities later in childhood (Ortiz-Mantilla et al., 2010). When structural MRI images are superimposed on the physiological activity detected by MEG or EEG, the spatial localization of brain activities recorded by these methods can be improved. 714 Neuron 67, September 9, 2010 ª2010 Elsevier Inc.

Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) is a popular method of neuroimaging in adults because it provides high spatial-resolution maps of neural activity across the entire brain (e.g., Gernsbacher and Kaschak, 2003). Unlike EEG and MEG, fMRI does not directly detect neural activity, but rather the changes in blood-oxygenation that occur in response to neural activation. Neural events happen in milliseconds; however, the blood-oxygenation changes that they induce are spread out over several seconds, thereby severely limiting fMRI’s temporal resolution. Few studies have attempted fMRI with infants because the technique requires infants to be perfectly still, and because the MRI device produces loud sounds making it necessary to shield infants’ ears. fMRI studies allow precise localization of brain activity and a few pioneering studies show remarkable similarity in the structures responsive to language in infants and adults (Dehaene-Lambertz et al., 2002, 2006). Near-Infrared Spectroscopy (NIRS) also measures cerebral hemodynamic responses in relation to neural activity, but utilizes

Neuron

Review the absorption of light, which is sensitive to the concentration of hemoglobin, to measure activation (Aslin and Mehler, 2005). NIRS measures changes in blood oxy- and deoxy-hemoglobin concentrations in the brain as well as total blood volume changes in various regions of the cerebral cortex using near infrared light. The NIRS system can determine the activity in specific regions of the brain by continuously monitoring blood hemoglobin level. Reports have begun to appear on infants in the first two years of life, testing infant responses to phonemes as well as longer stretches of speech such as ‘‘motherese’’ and forward versus reversed sentences (Bortfeld et al., 2007; Homae et al., 2006; Pen˜a et al., 2002; Taga and Asakawa, 2007). As with other hemodynamic techniques such as fMRI, NIRS typically does not provide good temporal resolution. However, event-related NIRS paradigms are being developed (Gratton and Fabiani, 2001). One of the most important potential uses of the NIRS technique is possible co-registration with other testing techniques such as EEG and MEG. Neural Signatures of Early Learning Perception of the phonetic units of speech—the vowels and consonants that make up words—is one of the most widely studied linguistic skills in infancy and adulthood. Phonetic perception and the role of experience in learning is studied in newborns, during development as infants are exposed to a particular language, in adults from different cultures, in children with developmental disabilities, and in nonhuman animals. Phonetic perception studies provide critical tests of theories of language development and its evolution. An extensive literature on developmental speech perception exists and brain measures are adding substantially to our knowledge of phonetic development and learning (see Kuhl, 2004; Kuhl et al., 2008; Werker and Curtin, 2005). In the last decade, brain and behavioral studies indicate a very complex set of interacting brain systems in the initial acquisition of language, many of which appear to reflect adult language processing, even early in infancy (Dehaene-Lambertz et al., 2006). In adulthood, language is highly modularized, which accounts for the very specific patterns of language deficits and brain damage in adult patients following stroke (P.K.K. and A. Damasio, Principles of Neuronal Science V [McGraw Hill], in press, E.R. Kandel, J.H. Schwartz, T.M. Jessell, S. Siegelbaum, and J. Hudspeth, eds). Infants, however, must begin life with brain systems that allow them to acquire any and all languages to which they are exposed, and can acquire language as either an auditory-vocal or a visual-manual code, on roughly the same timetable (Petitto and Marentette, 1991). We are in a nascent stage of understanding the brain mechanisms underlying infants’ early flexibility with regard to the acquisition of language – their ability to acquire language by eye or by ear, and acquire one or multiple languages – and also the reduction in this initial flexibility that occurs with age, which dramatically decreases our capacity to acquire a new language as adults (Newport, 1990). The infant brain is exquisitely poised to ‘‘crack the speech code’’ in a way that the adult brain cannot. Uncovering why this is the case is a very interesting puzzle. In this review I will also explore a current working hypothesis and its implications for brain development—that to crack the

speech code requires infants to combine a powerful set of domain-general computational and cognitive skills with their equally extraordinary social skills. Thus, the underlying brain systems must mutually influence one another during development. Experience with more than one language, for example, as in the case of people who are bilingual, is related to increases in particular cognitive skills, both in adults (Bialystok, 1991) and in children (Carlson and Meltzoff, 2008). Moreover, social interaction appears to be necessary for language acquisition, and an individual infant’s social behavior can be linked to their ability to learn new language material (Kuhl et al., 2003; B.T. Conboy et al., 2008, ‘‘Joint engagement with language tutors predicts learning of second-language phonetic stimuli,’’ presentation at the 16th International Conference on Infancy Studies, Vancouver). Regarding the social effects, I have suggested that the social brain—in ways we have yet to understand—‘‘gates’’ the computational mechanisms underlying learning in the domain of language (Kuhl, 2007). The assertion that social factors gate language learning explains not only how typically developing children acquire language, but also why children with autism exhibit twin deficits in social cognition and language, and why nonhuman animals with impressive computational abilities do not acquire language. Moreover, this gating hypothesis may explain why social factors play a far more significant role than previously realized in human learning across domains throughout our lifetimes (Meltzoff et al., 2009). Theories of social learning have traditionally emphasized the role of social factors in language acquisition (Bruner, 1983; Vygotsky, 1962; Tomasello, 2003a, 2003b). However, these models have emphasized the development of lexical understanding and the use of others’ communicative intentions to help understand the mapping between words and objects. The new data indicate that social interaction ‘‘gates’’ an even more basic aspect of language — learning of the elementary phonetic units of language — and this suggests a more fundamental connection between the brain mechanisms underlying human social understanding and the origins of language than has previously been hypothesized. In the next decade, the methods of modern neuroscience will be used to explore how the integration of brain activity across specialized brain systems involved in linguistic, social, and cognitive analyses take place. These approaches, as well as others described here, will lead us toward a view of language acquisition in the human child that could be transformational. The Learning Problem Language learning is a deep puzzle that our theories and machines struggle to solve but children accomplish with ease. How do infants discover the sounds and words used in their particular language(s) when the most sophisticated computers cannot? What is it about the human mind that allows a young child, merely one year old, to understand the words that induce meaning in our collective minds, and to begin to use those words to convey their innermost thoughts and desires? A child’s budding ability to express a thought through words is a breathtaking feat of the human mind. Research on infants’ phonetic perception in the first year of life shows how computational, cognitive, and social skills combine Neuron 67, September 9, 2010 ª2010 Elsevier Inc. 715

Neuron

Review

Figure 2. The Relationship between Age of Acquisition of a Second Language and Language Skill Adapted from Johnson and Newport (1989).

to form a very powerful learning mechanism. Interestingly, this mechanism does not resemble Skinner’s operant conditioning and reinforcement model of learning, nor Chomsky’s detailed view of parameter setting. The learning processes that infants employ when learning from exposure to language are complex and multi-modal, but also child’s play in that it grows out of infants’ heightened attention to items and events in the natural world: the faces, actions, and voices of other people. Language Exhibits a ‘‘Critical Period’’ for Learning A stage-setting concept for human language learning is the graph shown in Figure 1, redrawn from a study by Johnson and Newport on English grammar in native speakers of Korean learning English as a second language (1989). The graph as rendered shows a simplified schematic of second language competence as a function of the age of second language acquisition. Figure 2 is surprising from the standpoint of more general human learning. In the domain of language, infants and young children are superior learners when compared to adults, in spite of adults’ cognitive superiority. Language is one of the classic examples of a ‘‘critical’’ or ‘‘sensitive’’ period in neurobiology (Bruer, 2008; Johnson and Newport, 1989; Knudsen, 2004; Kuhl, 2004; Newport et al., 2001). Scientists are generally in agreement that this learning curve is representative of data across a wide variety of second-language learning studies (Bialystok and Hakuta, 1994; Birdsong and Molis, 2001; Flege et al., 1999; Johnson and Newport, 1989; Kuhl et al., 2005a, 2008; Mayberry and Lock, 2003; Neville et al., 1997; Weber-Fox and Neville, 1999; Yeni-Komshian et al., 2000; though see Birdsong, 1992; White and Genesee, 1996). Moreover, not all aspects of language exhibit the same temporally defined critical ‘‘windows.’’ The developmental timing of critical periods for learning phonetic, lexical, and syntactic levels of language vary, though studies cannot yet document the precise timing at each individual level. Studies indicate, for example, that the critical period for phonetic learning occurs prior to the end of the first year, whereas syntactic learning flour716 Neuron 67, September 9, 2010 ª2010 Elsevier Inc.

ishes between 18 and 36 months of age. Vocabulary development ‘‘explodes’’ at 18 months of age, but does not appear to be as restricted by age as other aspects of language learning—one can learn new vocabulary items at any age. One goal of future research will be to document the ‘‘opening’’ and ‘‘closing’’ of critical periods for all levels of language and understand how they overlap and why they differ. Given widespread agreement on the fact that we do not learn equally well over the lifespan, theory is currently focused on attempts to explain the phenomenon. What accounts for adults’ inability to learn a new language with the facility of an infant? One of the candidate explanations was Lenneberg’s hypothesis that development of the corpus callosum affected language learning (Lenneberg, 1967; Newport et al., 2001). More recent hypotheses take a different perspective. Newport raised a ‘‘less is more’’ hypothesis, which suggests that infants’ limited cognitive capacities actually allow superior learning of the simplified language spoken to infants (Newport, 1990). Work in my laboratory led me to advance the concept of neural commitment, the idea that neural circuitry and overall architecture develops early in infancy to detect the phonetic and prosodic patterns of speech (Kuhl, 2004; Zhang et al., 2005, 2009). This architecture is designed to maximize the efficiency of processing for the language(s) experienced by the infant. Once established, the neural architecture arising from French or Tagalog, for example, impedes learning of new patterns that do not conform. I will return to the concept of the critical period for language learning, and the role that computational, cognitive, and social skills may play in accounting for the relatively poor performance of adults attempting to learn a second language. Focal Example: Phoneme Learning The world’s languages contain approximately 600 consonants and 200 vowels (Ladefoged, 2001). Each language uses a unique set of about 40 distinct elements, phonemes, which change the meaning of a word (e.g., from bat to pat in English). But phonemes are actually groups of non-identical sounds, phonetic units, which are functionally equivalent in the language. Japanese-learning infants have to group the phonetic units r and l into a single phonemic category (Japanese r), whereas Englishlearning infants must uphold the distinction to separate rake from lake. Similarly, Spanish learning infants must distinguish phonetic units critical to Spanish words (bano and pano), whereas English learning infants must combine them into a single category (English b). If infants were exposed only to the subset of phonetic units that will eventually be used phonemically to differentiate words in their language, the problem would be trivial. But infants are exposed to many more phonetic variants than will be used phonemically, and have to derive the appropriate groupings used in their specific language. The baby’s task in the first year of life, therefore, is to make some progress in figuring out the composition of the 40-odd phonemic categories in their language(s) before trying to acquire words that depend on these elementary units. Learning to produce the sounds that will characterize infants as speakers of their ‘‘mother tongue’’ is equally challenging, and is not completely mastered until the age of 8 years (Ferguson et al., 1992). Yet, by 10 months of age, differences can be

Neuron

Review Figure 3. Effects of Age and Experience on Phonetic Discrimination Effects of age on discrimination of the American English /ra-la/ phonetic contrast by American and Japanese infants at 6–8 and 10–12 months of age. Mean percent correct scores are shown with standard errors indicated (adapted from Kuhl et al., 2006).

discerned in the babbling of infants raised in different countries (de Boysson-Bardies, 1993), and in the laboratory, vocal imitation can be elicited by 20 weeks (Kuhl and Meltzoff, 1982). The speaking patterns we adopt early in life last a lifetime (Flege, 1991). My colleagues and I have suggested that this kind of indelible learning stems from a linkage between sensory and motor experience; sensory experience with a specific language establishes auditory patterns stored in memory that are unique to that language, and these representations guide infants’ successive motor approximations until a match is achieved (Kuhl and Meltzoff, 1996). This ability to imitate vocally may also depend on the brain’s social understanding mechanisms which form a human mirroring system for seamless social interaction (Hari and Kujala, 2009), and we will revisit the impact of the brain’s social understanding systems later in this review. What enables the kind of learning we see in infants for speech? No machine in the world can derive the phonemic inventory of a language from natural language input (Rabiner and Huang, 1993), though models improve when exposed to ‘‘motherese,’’ the linguistically simplified and acoustically exaggerated speech that adults universally use when speaking to infants (de Boer and Kuhl, 2003). The variability in speech input is simply too enormous; Japanese adults produce both English r- and l- like sounds, exposing Japanese infants to both sounds (Lotto et al., 2004; Werker et al., 2007). How do Japanese infants learn that these two sounds do not distinguish words in their language, and that these differences should be ignored? Similarly, English speakers produce Spanish b and p, exposing American infants to both categories of sound (Abramson and Lisker, 1970). How do American infants learn that these sounds do not distinguish words in English? An important discovery in the 1970s was that infants initially hear all these phonetic differences (Eimas, 1975; Eimas et al., 1971; Lasky et al., 1975; Werker and Lalonde, 1988). What we must explain is how infants learn to group phonetic units into phonemic categories that make a difference in their language. The Timing of Phonetic Learning Another important discovery in the 1980s identified the timing of a crucial change in infant perception. The transition from an early

universal perceptual ability to distinguish all the phonetic units of all languages to a more language specific pattern of perception occurred very early in development—between 6 and 12 months of age (Werker and Tees, 1984), and initial work demonstrated that infants’ perception of nonnative distinctions declines during the second half of the first year of life (Best and McRoberts, 2003; Rivera-Gaxiola et al., 2005; Tsao et al., 2006; Werker and Tees, 1984). Work in this laboratory also established a new fact: At the same time that nonnative perception declines, native language speech perception shows a significant increase. Japanese infants’ discrimination of English r-l declines between 8 and 10 months of age, while at the same time in development, American infants’ discrimination of the same sounds shows an increase (Kuhl et al., 2006) (Figure 3). Phonetic Learning Predicts the Rate of Language Growth We argued that the increase observed in native-language phonetic perception represented a critical step in initial language learning and promoted language growth (Kuhl et al., 2006). To test this hypothesis, we designed a longitudinal study examining whether a measure of phonetic perception predicted children’s language skills measured 18 months later. The study demonstrated that infants’ phonetic discrimination ability at 6 months of age was significantly correlated with their success in language learning at 13, 16, and 24 months of age (Tsao et al., 2004). However, we recognized that in this initial study the association we observed might be due to infants’ cognitive skills, such as the ability to perform in the behavioral task, or to sensory abilities that affected auditory resolution of the differences in formant frequencies that underlie phonetic distinctions. To address these issues, we assessed both native and nonnative phonetic discrimination in 7-month-old infants, and used both a behavioral (Kuhl et al., 2005a) and an event-related potential measure, the mismatch negativity (MMN), to assess infants’ performance (Kuhl et al., 2008). Using a neural measure removed potential cognitive effects on performance; the use of both native and nonnative contrasts addressed the sensory issue, since better sensory abilities would be expected to improve both native and nonnative speech discrimination. The native language neural commitment (NLNC) view suggested that future language measures would be associated with early performance on both native and nonnative contrasts, but in opposite directions. The results conformed to this prediction. When both native and nonnative phonetic discrimination Neuron 67, September 9, 2010 ª2010 Elsevier Inc. 717

Neuron

Review Figure 4. Speech Discrimination Predicts Vocabulary Growth (A) A 7.5-month-old infant wearing an ERP electrocap. (B) Infant ERP waveforms at one sensor location (CZ) for one infant are shown in response to a native (English) and nonnative (Mandarin) phonetic contrast at 7.5 months. The mismatch negativity (MMN) is obtained by subtracting the standard waveform (black) from the deviant waveform (English, red; Mandarin, blue). This infant’s response suggests that native-language learning has begun because the MMN negativity in response to the native English contrast is considerably stronger than that to the nonnative contrast. (C) Hierarchical linear growth modeling of vocabulary growth between 14 and 30 months for MMN values of +1 SD and 1 SD on the native contrast at 7.5 months (C, left) and vocabulary growth for MMN values of +1 SD and 1 SD on the nonnative contrast at 7.5 months (C, right) (adapted from Kuhl et al., 2008).

was measured in the same infants at 7.5 months of age, better native language perception predicted significantly higher language abilities between 18 and 30 months of age, whereas better nonnative phonetic perception at the same age predicted poorer language abilities at the same future points in time (Kuhl et al., 2005a, 2008). As shown in Figure 4, the ERP measure at 7.5 months of age (Figure 4A) provided an MMN measure of speech discrimination for both native and nonnative contrasts; greater negativity of the MMN reflects greater discrimination (Figure 4B). Hierarchical linear growth modeling of vocabulary between 14 and 30 months for MMN values of +1SD and 1SD (Figure 4C) revealed that both native and nonnative phonetic discrimination significantly predict future language, but in opposite directions with better native MMNs predicting advanced future language development and better nonnative MMNs predicting less advanced future language development. The results are explained by NLNC: better native phonetic discrimination enhances infants’ skills in detecting words and this vaults them toward language, whereas better nonnative abilities indicated that infants remained at an earlier phase of development – sensitive to all phonetic differences. Infants’ ability to learn which phonetic units are relevant in the language(s) they are exposed to, while decreasing or inhibiting their attention to the phonetic units that do not distinguish words in their language, is the necessary step required to begin the path toward language. These data led to a theoretical argument that an implicit learning process commits the brain’s neural circuitry to the properties of native-language speech, and that neural commitment has bi-directional effects – it increases learning for patterns (such as words) that are compatible with the learned phonetic structure, while decreasing perception of 718 Neuron 67, September 9, 2010 ª2010 Elsevier Inc.

nonnative patterns that do not match the learned scheme (Kuhl, 2004). Recent data indicate very long-term associations between infants’ phonetic perception and future language and reading skills. Our studies show that the ability to discriminate two simple vowels at 6 months of age predicts language abilities and pre-reading skills such as rhyming at the age of 5 years, an association that holds regardless of socio-economic status and the children’s language skills at 2.5 years of age (Cardillo, 2010). A Computational Solution to Phonetic Learning A surprising new form of learning, referred to as ‘‘statistical learning’’ (Saffran et al., 1996), was discovered in the 1990s. Statistical learning is computational in nature, and reflects implicit rather than explicit learning. It relies on the ability to automatically pick up and learn from the statistical regularities that exist in the stream of sensory information we process, and strongly influences both phonetic learning and early word learning. For example, data show that the developmental change in phonetic perception between the ages of 6 and 12 months is supported by infants’ sensitivity to the distributional frequencies of the sounds in the language(s) they hear, and that this affects perception. To illustrate, adult speakers of English and Japanese produce both English r- and l-like sounds, even though English speakers hear /r/ and /l/ as distinct and Japanese adults hear them as identical. Japanese infants are therefore exposed to both /r/ and /l/ sounds, even though they do not represent distinct categories in Japanese. The presence of a particular sound in ambient language, therefore, does not account for infant learning. However, distributional frequency analyses of English and Japanese show differential patterns of distributional frequency; in English, /r/ and /l/ occur very frequently; in Japanese, the most frequent sound of this type is Japanese /r/ which is related to but distinct from both the English variants. Can infants learn from this kind of distributional information in speech input?

Neuron

Review A variety of studies show that infants’ perception of phonetic categories is affected by distributional patterns in the sounds they hear. In one study using very simple stimuli and shortterm exposure in the laboratory, 6- and 8-month-old infants were exposed for 2 min to 8 sounds that formed a continuum of sounds from /da/ to /ta/ (Maye et al., 2002; see also Maye et al., 2008). All infants heard all the stimuli on the continuum, but experienced different distributional frequencies of the sounds. A ‘‘bimodal’’ group heard more frequent presentations of stimuli at the ends of the continuum; a ‘‘unimodal’’ group heard more frequent presentations of stimuli from the middle of the continuum. After familiarization, infants in the bimodal group discriminated the /da/ and /ta/ sounds, whereas those in the unimodal group did not. Furthermore, while previous studies show that infants integrate the auditory and visual instantiations of speech (Kuhl and Meltzoff, 1982; Patterson and Werker, 1999), more recent studies show that infants’ detection of statistical patterns in speech stimuli, like those used by Maye and her colleagues, is influenced both by the auditory event and the sight of a face articulating the sounds. When exposed only to the ambiguous auditory stimuli in the middle of a speech continuum, infants discriminated the /da-ta/ contrast when each auditory stimulus was paired with the appropriate face articulating either /da/ or /ta/; discrimination did not occur if only one face was used with all auditory stimuli (Teinonen et al., 2008). Cross-cultural studies also indicate that infants are sensitive to the statistical distribution of sounds they hear in natural language. Infants tested in Sweden and the United States at 6 months of age showed a unique response to vowel sounds that represent the distributional mean in productions of adults who speak the language (i.e., ‘‘prototypes’’); this response was shown only for stimuli infants had been exposed to in natural language (native-vowel prototypes), not foreign-language vowel prototypes (Kuhl et al., 1992). Taken as a whole, these studies indicate infants pick up the distributional frequency patterns in ambient speech, whether they experience them during shortterm laboratory experiments, or over months in natural environments, and can learn from them. Statistical learning also supports word learning. Unlike written language, spoken language has no reliable markers to indicate word boundaries in typical phrases. How do infants find words? New experiments show that, before 8-month-old infants know the meaning of a single word, they detect likely word candidates through sensitivity to the transitional probabilities between adjacent syllables. In typical words, like in the phrase, ‘‘pretty baby,’’ the transitional probabilities between the two syllables within a word, such as those between ‘‘pre’’ and ‘‘tty,’’ and between ‘‘ba’’ and ‘‘by,’’ are higher than those between syllables that cross word boundaries, such and ‘‘tty’’ and ‘‘ba.’’ Infants are sensitive to these probabilities. When exposed to a 2 min string of nonsense syllables, with no acoustic breaks or other cues to word boundaries, they treat syllables that have high transitional probabilities as ‘‘words’’ (Saffran et al., 1996). Recent findings show that even sleeping newborns detect this kind of statistical structure in speech, as shown in studies using event-related brain potentials (Teinonen et al., 2009). Statistical learning has been shown in nonhuman animals (Hauser et al., 2001), and in

humans for stimuli outside the realm of speech, operating for musical and visual patterns in the same way as speech (Fiser and Aslin, 2002; Kirkham et al., 2002; Saffran et al., 1999). Thus, a very basic implicit learning mechanism allows infants, from birth, to detect statistical structure in speech and in other signals. Infants’ sensitivity to this statistical structure can influence both phoneme and word learning.

Effects of Social Interaction on Computational Learning As reviewed, infants show robust learning effects in statistical learning studies when tested in the laboratory with very simple stimuli (Maye et al., 2002, 2008; Saffran et al., 1996). However, complex natural language learning may challenge infants in a way that these experiments do not. Are there constraints on statistical learning as an explanation for natural language learning? A series of later studies suggest that this is the case. Laboratory studies testing infant phonetic and word learning from exposure to a complex natural language suggest limits on statistical learning, and provide new information suggesting that social brain systems are integrally involved, and, in fact, may be necessary to explain natural language learning. The new experiments tested infants in the following way: At 9 months of age, the age at which the initial universal pattern of infant perception has changed to one that is more languagespecific, infants were exposed to a foreign language for the first time (Kuhl et al., 2003). Nine-month-old American infants listened to 4 different native speakers of Mandarin during 12 sessions scheduled over 4–5 weeks. The foreign language ‘‘tutors’’ read books and played with toys in sessions that were unscripted. A control group was also exposed for 12 sessions but heard only English from native speakers. After infants in the experimental Mandarin exposure group and the English control group completed their sessions, all were tested with a Mandarin phonetic contrast that does not occur in English. Both behavioral and ERP methods were used. The results indicated that infants had a remarkable ability to learn from the ‘‘live-person’’ sessions – after exposure, they performed significantly better on the Mandarin contrast when compared to the control group that heard only English. In fact, they performed equivalently to infants of the same age tested in Taiwan who had been listening to Mandarin for 10 months (Kuhl et al., 2003). The study revealed that infants can learn from first-time natural exposure to a foreign language at 9 months, and answered what was initially the experimental question: can infants learn the statistical structure of phonemes in a new language given firsttime exposure at 9 months of age? If infants required a longterm history of listening to that language—as would be the case if infants needed to build up statistical distributions over the initial 9 months of life—the answer to our question would have been no. However, the data clearly showed that infants are capable of learning at 9 months when exposed to a new language. Moreover, learning was durable. Infants returned to the laboratory for their behavioral discrimination tests between 2 and 12 days after the final language exposure session, and between 8 and 33 days for their ERP measurements. No ‘‘forgetting’’ of the Mandarin contrast occurred during the 2 to 33 day delay. Neuron 67, September 9, 2010 ª2010 Elsevier Inc. 719

Neuron

Review Figure 5. Social Interaction Facilitates Foreign Language Learning The need for social interaction in language acquisition is shown by foreign-language learning experiments. Nine-month-old infants experienced 12 sessions of Mandarin Chinese through (A) natural interaction with a Chinese speaker (left) or the identical linguistic information delivered via television (right) or audiotape (data not shown). (B) Natural interaction resulted in significant learning of Mandarin phonemes when compared with a control group who participated in interaction using English (left). No learning occurred from television or audiotaped presentations (middle). Data for age-matched Chinese and American infants learning their native languages are shown for comparison (right) (adapted from Kuhl et al., 2003).

We were struck by the fact that infants exposed to Mandarin were socially very engaged in the language sessions and began to wonder about the role of social interaction in learning. Would infants learn if they were exposed to the same information in the absence of a human being, say, via television or an audiotape? If statistical learning is sufficient, the television and audio-only conditions should produce learning. Infants who were exposed to the same foreign-language material at the same time and at the same rate, but via standard television or audiotape only, showed no learning—their performance equaled that of infants in the control group who had not been exposed to Mandarin at all (Figure 5). Thus, the presence of a human being interacting with the infant during language exposure, while not required for simpler statistical-learning tasks (Maye et al., 2002; Saffran et al., 1996), is critical for learning in complex natural language-learning situations in which infants heard an average of 33,000 Mandarin syllables from a total of four different talkers over a 4–5-week period (Kuhl et al., 2003). Explaining the Effect of Social Interaction on Language Learning The impact of social interaction on language learning (Kuhl et al., 2003) led to the development of the Social Gating Hypothesis 720 Neuron 67, September 9, 2010 ª2010 Elsevier Inc.

(Kuhl, 2007). ‘‘Gating’’ suggested that social interaction creates a vastly different learning situation, one in which additional factors introduced by a social context influence learning. Gating could operate by increasing: (1) attention and/ or arousal, (2) information, (3) a sense of relationship, and/or (4) activation of brain mechanisms linking perception and action. Attention and arousal affect learning in a wide variety of domains (Posner, 2004), and could impact infant learning during exposure to a new language. Infant attention, measured in the original studies, was significantly higher in response to the live person than to either inanimate source (Kuhl et al., 2003). Attention has been shown to play a role in the statistical learning studies as well. ‘‘High-attender’’ 10-month-olds, measured as the amount of infant ‘‘looking time,’’ learned from bimodal stimulus distributions when ‘‘lowattenders’’ did not (Yoshida et al., 2006; see also Yoshida et al., 2010). Heightened attention and arousal could produce an overall increase in the quantity or quality of the speech information that infants encode and remember. Recent data suggest a role for attention in adult second-language phonetic learning as well (Guion and Pederson, 2007). A second hypothesis was raised to explain the effectiveness of social interaction – the live learning situation allowed the infants and tutors to interact, and this added contingent and reciprocal social behaviors that increased information that could foster learning. During live exposure, tutors focused their visual gaze on pictures in the books or on the toys as they spoke, and the infants’ gaze tended to follow the speaker’s gaze, as previously observed in social learning studies (Baldwin, 1995; Brooks and Meltzoff, 2002). Referential information is present in both the live and televised conditions, but it is more difficult to pick up via television, and is totally absent during audio-only presentations. Gaze following is a significant predictor of receptive vocabulary (Baldwin, 1995; Brooks and Meltzoff, 2005; Mundy and Gomes, 1998), and may help infants link the foreign speech

Neuron

Review to the objects they see. When 9-month-old infants follow a tutor’s line of regard in our foreign-language learning situation, the tutor’s specific meaningful social cues, such as eye gaze and pointing to an object of reference, might help infants segment word-like units from ongoing speech, thus facilitating phonetic learning of the sounds contained in those words. If this hypothesis is correct, then the degree to which infants interact and engage socially with the tutor in the social language-learning situation should correlate with learning. In studies testing this hypothesis, 9-month-old infants were exposed to Spanish (Conboy and Kuhl, 2010), extending the experiment to a new language. Other changes in method expanded the tests of language learning to include both Spanish phonetic learning and Spanish word learning, as well as adding measures of specific interactions between the tutor and the infant to examine whether interactive episodes could be related to learning of either phonemes or words. The results confirmed Spanish language learning, both of the phonetic units of the language and the lexical units of the language (Conboy and Kuhl, 2010). In addition, these studies answered a key question—does the degree of infants’ social engagement during the Spanish exposure sessions predict the degree of language learning as shown by ERP measures of Spanish phoneme discrimination? Our results (Figure 6) show that they do (Conboy et al., 2008a). Infants who shifted their gaze between the tutor’s eyes and newly introduced toys during the Spanish exposure sessions showed a more negative MMN (indicating greater neural discrimination) in response to the Spanish phonetic contrast. Infants who simply gazed at the tutor or at the toy, showing fewer gaze shifts, produced less negative MMN responses. The degree of infants’ social engagement during sessions predicted both phonetic and word learning—infants who were more socially engaged showed greater learning as reflected by ERP brain measures of both phonetic and word learning. Figure 6. Social Engagement Predicts Foreign Language Learning

Language, Cognition, and Bilingual Language Experience Specific cognitive abilities, particularly the executive control of attention and the ability to inhibit a pre-potent response (inhibitory control), are associated with exposure to more than one language. Bilingual adult speakers show enhanced executive control skills (Bialystok, 1999, 2001; Bialystok and Hakuta, 1994; Wang et al., 2009), a finding that has been extended to young school-aged bilingual children (Carlson and Meltzoff, 2008). In monolingual infants, the decline in discrimination of nonnative contrasts (which promotes more rapid growth in language, see Figure 4C) is associated with enhanced inhibitory control, suggesting that domain-general cognitive mechanisms underlying attention may play a role in enhancing performance on native and suppressing performance on nonnative phonetic contrasts early in development (Conboy et al., 2008b; Kuhl et al., 2008). In support of this view, it is noteworthy that in the Spanish exposure studies, a median split of the post-exposure MMN phonetic discrimination data revealed that infants showing greater phonetic learning had higher cognitive control scores post-exposure. These same infants did not differ in their preexposure cognitive control tests (Conboy, Sommerville, and

(A) Nine-month-old infants experienced 12 sessions of Spanish through natural interaction with a Spanish speaker. (B) The neural response to the Spanish phonetic contrast (d-t) and the proportion of gaze shifts during Spanish sessions were significantly correlated (from Conboy et al., unpublished data).

P.K.K., unpublished data). Taken as a whole, the data are consistent with the notion that cognitive skills are strongly linked to phonetic learning at the initial stage of phonetic development (Kuhl et al., 2008). The ‘‘Social Brain’’ and Language Learning Mechanisms While attention and the information provided by interaction with another may help explain social learning effects for language, it is also possible that social contexts are connected to language learning through even more fundamental mechanisms. Social interaction may activate brain mechanisms that invoke a sense of relationship between the self and other, as well as social understanding systems that link perception and action (Hari and Kujala, 2009). Neuroscience research focused on shared neural systems for perception and action have a long tradition in speech research (Liberman and Mattingly, 1985), and interest in ‘‘mirror systems’’ for social cognition have re-invigorated this Neuron 67, September 9, 2010 ª2010 Elsevier Inc. 721

Neuron

Review

Figure 7. Perception-Action Brain Systems Respond to Speech in Infancy (A) Neuromagnetic signals were recorded in newborns, 6-month-old infants (shown), and 12-month-old infants in the MEG machine while listening to speech and nonspeech auditory signals. (B) Brain activation in response to speech recorded in auditory (B, top row) and motor (B, bottom row) brain regions showed no activation in the motor speech areas in the newborn in response to auditory speech but increasing activity that was temporally synchronized between the auditory and motor brain regions in 6and 12-month-old infants (from Imada et al., 2006).

tradition (Kuhl and Meltzoff, 1996; Meltzoff and Decety, 2003; Pulvermuller, 2005; Rizzolatti, 2005; Rizzolatti and Craighero, 2004). Might the brain systems that link perception and production for speech be engaged when infants experience social interaction during language learning? The effects of Spanish language exposure extend to speech production, and provide evidence of an early coupling of sensory-motor learning in speech. The English-learning infants who were exposed to 12 sessions of Spanish (Conboy and Kuhl, 2010) showed subsequent changes in their patterns of vocalization (N. Ward et al., 2009, ‘‘Consequences of shortterm language exposure in infancy on babbling,’’ poster presented at the 158th meeting of the Acoustical Society of America, San Antonio). When presented with language from a Spanish speaker (but not from an English speaker), a new pattern of infant vocalizations was evoked, one that reflected the prosodic patterns of Spanish, rather than English. This only occurred in response to Spanish, and only occurred in infants who had been exposed to Spanish in the laboratory experiment. Neuroscience studies using speech and imaging techniques have the capacity to examine whether the brain systems involved in speech production are activated when infants listen to speech. Two new infant studies take a first step toward an answer to this developmental issue. Imada et al. (2006) used magnetoenchephalography (MEG) to study newborns, 6-monthold infants, and 12-month-old infants while they listened to nonspeech, harmonics, and syllables (Figure 7). Dehaene-Lambertz and colleagues (2006) used fMRI to scan 3-month-old infants while they listened to sentences. Both studies show activation in brain areas responsible for speech production (the inferior frontal, Broca’s area) in response to auditorally presented speech. Imada et al. reported synchronized activation in response to speech in auditory and motor areas at 6 and 12 months, and Dehaene et al. reported activation in motor speech areas in response to sentences in 3-month-olds. Is activation of 722 Neuron 67, September 9, 2010 ª2010 Elsevier Inc.

Broca’s area to the pure perception of speech present at birth? Newborns tested by Imada et al. (2006) showed no activation in motor speech areas for any signals, whereas auditory areas responded robustly to all signals, suggesting the possibility that perception-action linkages for speech develop by 3 months of age as infants begin to produce vowel-like sounds. Using the tools of modern neuroscience, we can now ask how the brain systems responsible for speech perception and speech production forge links early in development, and whether these same brain areas are involved when language is presented socially, but not when language is presented through a disembodied source such as a television set. Brain Rhythms, Cognitive Effects, and Language Learning MEG studies will provide an opportunity to examine brain rhythms associated with broader cognitive abilities during speech learning. Brain oscillations in various frequency bands have been associated with cognitive abilities. The induced brain rhythms have been linked to attention and cognitive effort, and are of primary interest since MEG studies with adults have shown that cognitive effort is increased when processing nonnative speech (Zhang et al., 2005, 2009). In the adult MEG studies, participants listened to their native- and to nonnative-language sounds. The results indicated that when listening to native language, the brain’s activation was more focal, and faster, than when listening to nonnative-language sounds (Zhang et al., 2005). In other words, there was greater neural efficiency for native as opposed to nonnative speech processing. Training studies show that adults can improve nonnative phonetic perception when training occurs under more social learning conditions, and MEG measures before and after training indicate that neural efficiency increases after training (Zhang et al., 2009). Similar patterns of neural inefficiency occur as young children learn words. Young children’s event-related brain potential

Neuron

Review responses are more diffuse and become more focally lateralized in the left hemisphere’s temporal regions as they develop (Conboy et al., 2008a; Durston et al., 2002; Mills et al., 1993, 1997; Tamm et al., 2002) and studies with young children with autism show this same pattern – more diffuse activation – when compared to typically developing children of the same age (CoffeyCorina et al., 2008). Brain rhythms may be reflective of these same processes in infants as they learn language. Brain oscillations in four frequency bands have been associated with cognitive effects: theta (4–7 Hz), alpha (8–12 Hz), beta (13–30 Hz) and gamma (30–100 Hz). Resting gamma has been related to early language and cognitive skills in the first three years (Benasich et al., 2008). The induced theta rhythm has been linked to attention and cognitive effort, and will be of strong interest to speech researchers. Power in the theta band increases with memory load in adults tested in either verbal or nonverbal tasks (Gevins et al., 1997; Krause et al., 2000) and in 8-month-old infants tested in working memory tasks (Bell and Wolfe, 2007). Examining brain rhythms in infants using speech stimuli is now underway using EEG with high-risk infants (C.R. Percaccio et al., 2010, ‘‘Native and nonnative speech-evoked responses in high-risk infant siblings,’’ abstracts of the International Meeting for Autism Research, May 2010, Philadelphia) and using MEG with typically developing infants (A.N. Bosseler et al., 2010, ‘‘Event-related fields and cortical rhythms to native and nonnative phonetic contrasts in infants and adults,’’ abstracts of the 17th International Conference of Biomagnetism), as they listen to native and nonnative speech. Comparisons between native and nonnative speech may allow us to examine whether there is increased cognitive effort associated with processing nonnative language, across age and populations. We are also testing whether language presented in a social environment affects brain rhythms in a way that television and audiotape presentations do not. Neural efficiency is not observable with behavioral approaches—and one promise of brain rhythms is that they provide the opportunity to compare the higher-level processes that likely underlie humans’ neural plasticity for language early in development in typical children as well as in children at risk for autism spectrum disorder, and in adults learning a second language. These kinds of studies may reveal the cortical dynamics underlying the ‘‘Critical Period’’ for language. These results underscore the importance of a social interest in speech early in development in both typical and atypical populations. An interest in ‘‘motherese,’’ the universal style with which adults address infants across cultures (Fernald and Simon, 1984; Grieser and Kuhl, 1988) provides a good metric of the value of a social interest in speech. The acoustic stretching in motherese, observed across languages, makes phonetic units more distinct from one another (Burnham et al., 2002; Englund, 2005; Kuhl et al., 1997; Liu et al., 2003, 2007). Mothers who use the exaggerated phonetic patterns to a greater extent when talking to their typically developing 2-month-old infants have infants who show significantly better performance in phonetic discrimination tasks when tested in the laboratory (Liu et al., 2003). New data show that the potential benefits of early motherese extend to the age of 5 years (Liu et al., 2009). Recent ERP studies indicate that infants’ brain responses to the exag-

gerated patterns of motherese elicit an enhanced N250 as well as increased neural synchronization at frontal-central-parietal sites (Zhang et al., personal communication). It is also noteworthy that children with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) prefer to listen to non-speech rather than speech, when given a choice, and this preference is strongly correlated with the children’s ERP brain responses to speech, as well as with the severity of their autistic symptoms (Kuhl et al., 2005b). Early speech measures may therefore provide an early biomarker of risk for ASD. Neuroscience studies in both typically developing and children with ASD that examine the coherence and causality of interaction between social and linguistic brain systems will provide valuable new theoretical data as well as potentially improving the early diagnosis and treatment of children with autism. Neurobiological Foundations of Communicative Learning Humans are not the only species in which communicative learning is affected by social interaction (see Fitch et al., 2010, for review). Young zebra finches need visual interaction with a tutor bird to learn song in the laboratory (Eales, 1989). A zebra finch will override its innate preference for conspecific song if a Bengalese finch foster father feeds it, even when adult zebra finch males can be heard nearby (Immelmann, 1969). More recent data indicate that male zebra finches vary their songs across social contexts; songs produced when singing to females vary from those produced in isolation, and females prefer these ‘‘directed’’ songs (Woolley and Doupe, 2008). Moreover, gene expression in highlevel auditory areas is involved in this kind of social context perception (Woolley and Doupe, 2008). White-crowned sparrows, which reject the audiotaped songs of alien species, learn the same alien songs when a live tutor sings them (Baptista and Petrinovich, 1986). In barn owls (Brainard and Knudsen, 1998) and white-crowned sparrows (Baptista and Petrinovich, 1986), a richer social environment extends the duration of the sensitive period for learning. Social contexts also advance song production in birds; male cowbirds respond to the social gestures and displays of females, which affect the rate, quality, and retention of song elements in their repertoires (West and King, 1988), and white-crowned sparrow tutors provide acoustic feedback that affects the repertoires of young birds (Nelson and Marler, 1994). Studies of the brain systems linking social and auditory-vocal learning in humans and birds may significantly advance theories in the near future (Doupe and Kuhl, 2008). Neural Underpinnings of Cognitive and Social Influences on Language Learning Our current model of neural commitment to language describes a significant role for cognitive processes such as attention in language learning (Kuhl et al., 2008). Studies of brain rhythms in infants and other neuroscience research in the next decade promise to reveal the intricate relationships between language and cognitive processes. Language evolved to address a need for social communication and evolution may have forged a link between language and the social brain in humans (Adolphs, 2003; Dunbar, 1998; Kuhl, 2007; Pulvermuller, 2005). Social interaction appears to Neuron 67, September 9, 2010 ª2010 Elsevier Inc. 723

Neuron

Review be necessary for language learning in infants (Kuhl et al., 2003), and an individual infant’s social behavior is linked to their ability to learn new language material (Conboy et al., 2008a). In fact, social ‘‘gating’’ may explain why social factors play a far more significant role than previously realized in human learning across domains throughout our lifetimes (Meltzoff et al., 2009). If social factors ‘‘gate’’ computational learning, as proposed, infants would be protected from meaningless calculations – learning would be restricted to signals that derive from live humans rather than other sources (Doupe and Kuhl, 2008; Evans and Marler, 1995; Marler, 1991). Constraints of this kind appear to exist for infant imitation: when infants hear nonspeech sounds with the same frequency components as speech, they do not attempt to imitate them (Kuhl et al., 1991). Research has begun to appear on the development of the neural networks in humans that constitute the ‘‘social brain’’ and invoke a sense of relationship between the self and other, as well as on social understanding systems that link perception and action (Hari and Kujala, 2009). Neuroscience studies using speech and imaging techniques are beginning to examine links between sensory and motor brain systems (Pulvermuller, 2005; Rizzolatti and Craighero, 2004), and the fact that MEG has now been demonstrated to be feasible for developmental studies of speech perception in infants during the first year of life (Imada et al., 2006) provides exciting opportunities. MEG studies of brain activation in infants during social versus nonsocial language experience will allow us to investigate cognitive effects via brain rhythms and also examine whether social brain networks are activated differentially under the two conditions. Many questions remain about the impact of cognitive skills and social interaction on natural speech and language learning. As reviewed, new data show the extensive interface between cognition and language and indicate that whether or not multiple languages are experienced in infancy affects cognitive brain systems. The idea that social interaction is integral to language learning has been raised previously for word learning; however, previous data and theorizing have not tied early phonetic learning to social factors. Doing so suggests a more fundamental connection between the motivation to learn socially and the mechanisms that enable language learning. Understanding how language learning, cognition, and social processing interact in development may ultimately explain the mechanisms underlying the critical period for language learning. Furthermore, understanding the mechanism underlying the critical period may help us develop methods that more effectively teach second languages to adult learners. Neuroscience studies over the next decade will lead the way on this theoretical work, and also advance our understanding of the practical results of training methods, both for adults learning new languages, and children with developmental disabilities struggling to learn their first language. These advances will promote the science of learning in the domain of language, and potentially, shed light on human learning mechanisms more generally.

of Washington LIFE Center (SBE-0354453), and by grants from the National Institutes of Health (HD37954, HD55782, HD02274, DC04661).

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Burnham, D., Kitamura, C., and Vollmer-Conna, U. (2002). What’s new, pussycat? On talking to babies and animals. Science 296, 1435.

The author and research reported here were supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation’s Science of Learning Program to the University

Cardillo, G.C. (2010). Predicting the predictors: Individual differences in longitudinal relationships between infant phoneme perception, toddler vocabulary,

724 Neuron 67, September 9, 2010 ª2010 Elsevier Inc.

REFERENCES Abramson, A.S., and Lisker, L. (1970). Discriminability along the voicing continuum: cross-language tests. Proc. Int. Congr. Phon. Sci. 6, 569–573. Adolphs, R. (2003). Cognitive neuroscience of human social behaviour. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 4, 165–178. Aslin, R.N., and Mehler, J. (2005). Near-infrared spectroscopy for functional studies of brain activity in human infants: promise, prospects, and challenges. J. Biomed. Opt. 10, 11009. Baldwin, D.A. (1995). Understanding the link between joint attention and language. In Joint Attention: Its Origins and Role in Development, C. Moore and P.J. Dunham, eds. (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates), pp. 131–158. Baptista, L.F., and Petrinovich, L. (1986). Song development in the whitecrowned sparrow: social factors and sex differences. Anim. Behav. 34, 1359–1371. Bell, M.A., and Wolfe, C.D. (2007). Changes in brain functioning from infancy to early childhood: evidence from EEG power and coherence during working memory tasks. Dev. Neuropsychol. 31, 21–38. Benasich, A.A., Gou, Z., Choudhury, N., and Harris, K.D. (2008). Early cognitive and language skills are linked to resting frontal gamma power across the first 3 years. Behav. Brain Res. 195, 215–222. Best, C.C., and McRoberts, G.W. (2003). Infant perception of non-native consonant contrasts that adults assimilate in different ways. Lang. Speech 46, 183–216. Bialystok, E. (1991). Language Processing in Bilingual Children (Cambridge University Press). Bialystok, E. (1999). Cognitive complexity and attentional control in the bilingual mind. Child Dev. 70, 636–644. Bialystok, E. (2001). Bilingualism in Development: Language, Literacy, and Cognition (New York: Cambridge University Press). Bialystok, E., and Hakuta, K. (1994). Other Words: The Science and Psychology of Second-Language Acquisition (New York: Basic Books). Birdsong, D. (1992). Ultimate attainment in second language acquisition. Ling. Soc. Am. 68, 706–755. Birdsong, D., and Molis, M. (2001). On the evidence for maturational constraints in second-language acquisitions. J. Mem. Lang. 44, 235–249. Bortfeld, H., Wruck, E., and Boas, D.A. (2007). Assessing infants’ cortical response to speech using near-infrared spectroscopy. Neuroimage 34, 407–415. Brainard, M.S., and Knudsen, E.I. (1998). Sensitive periods for visual calibration of the auditory space map in the barn owl optic tectum. J. Neurosci. 18, 3929–3942. Brooks, R., and Meltzoff, A.N. (2002). The importance of eyes: how infants interpret adult looking behavior. Dev. Psychol. 38, 958–966. Brooks, R., and Meltzoff, A.N. (2005). The development of gaze following and its relation to language. Dev. Sci. 8, 535–543. Bruer, J.T. (2008). Critical periods in second language learning: distinguishing phenomena from explanation. In Brain, Behavior and Learning in Language and Reading Disorders, M. Mody and E. Silliman, eds. (New York: The Guilford Press), pp. 72–96. Bruner, J. (1983). Child’s Talk: Learning to Use Language (New York: W.W. Norton).

Neuron

Review and preschooler language and phonological awareness. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Washington.

Fernald, A., and Simon, T. (1984). Expanded intonation contours in mothers’ speech to newborns. Dev. Psychol. 20, 104–113.

Carlson, S.M., and Meltzoff, A.N. (2008). Bilingual experience and executive functioning in young children. Dev. Sci. 11, 282–298.

Fiser, J., and Aslin, R.N. (2002). Statistical learning of new visual feature combinations by infants. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 99, 15822–15826.

Cheour, M., Imada, T., Taulu, S., Ahonen, A., Salonen, J., and Kuhl, P.K. (2004). Magnetoencephalography is feasible for infant assessment of auditory discrimination. Exp. Neurol. 190 (Suppl 1 ), S44–S51.

Fitch, W.T., Huber, L., and Bugnyar, T. (2010). Social cognition and the evolution of language: constructing cognitive phylogenies. Neuron 65, 795–814.

Chomsky, N. (1959). Review of Skinner’s Verbal Behavior. Language 35, 26–58. Coffey-Corina, S., Padden, D., Kuhl, P.K., and Dawson, G. (2008). ERPs to words correlate with behavioral measures in children with Autism Spectrum Disorder. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 123, 3742–3748. Conboy, B.T., and Kuhl, P.K. (2010). Impact of second-language experience in infancy: brain measures of first- and second-language speech perception. Dev. Sci., in press. Published online June 28, 2010. 10.1111/j.1467-7687. 2010.00973.x.

Flege, J.E. (1991). Age of learning affects the authenticity of voice-onset time (VOT) in stop consonants produced in a second language. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 89, 395–411. Flege, J.E., Yeni-Komshian, G.H., and Liu, S. (1999). Age constraints on second-language acquisition. J. Mem. Lang. 41, 78–104. Friederici, A.D. (2005). Neurophysiological markers of early language acquisition: from syllables to sentences. Trends Cogn. Sci. 9, 481–488. Friederici, A.D., and Wartenburger, I. (2010). Language and Brain. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science 1, 150–159.

Conboy, B.T., Rivera-Gaxiola, M., Silva-Pereyra, J., and Kuhl, P.K. (2008a). Event-related potential studies of early language processing at the phoneme, word, and sentence levels. In Early Language Development: Volume 5. Bridging Brain and Behavior, Trends in Language Acquisition Research, A.D. Friederici and G. Thierry, eds. (Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins), pp. 23–64.

Gernsbacher, M.A., and Kaschak, M.P. (2003). Neuroimaging studies of language production and comprehension. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 54, 91–114.

Conboy, B.T., Sommerville, J.A., and Kuhl, P.K. (2008b). Cognitive control factors in speech perception at 11 months. Dev. Psychol. 44, 1505–1512.

Golestani, N., and Pallier, C. (2007). Anatomical correlates of foreign speech sound production. Cereb. Cortex 17, 929–934.

de Boer, B., and Kuhl, P.K. (2003). Investigating the role of infant-directed speech with a computer model. ARLO 4, 129–134.

Gratton, G., and Fabiani, M. (2001). Shedding light on brain function: the eventrelated optical signal. Trends Cogn. Sci. 5, 357–363.

de Boysson-Bardies, B. (1993). Ontogeny of language-specific syllabic productions. In Developmental Neurocognition: Speech and Face Processing in the First Year of Life, B. de Boysson-Bardies, S. de Schonen, P. Jusczyk, P. McNeilage, and J. Morton, eds. (Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer), pp. 353–363.

Grieser, D.L., and Kuhl, P.K. (1988). Maternal speech to infants in a tonal language: support for universal prosodic features in motherese. Dev. Psychol. 24, 14–20.

Dehaene-Lambertz, G., Dehaene, S., and Hertz-Pannier, L. (2002). Functional neuroimaging of speech perception in infants. Science 298, 2013–2015. Dehaene-Lambertz, G., Hertz-Pannier, L., Dubois, J., Me´riaux, S., Roche, A., Sigman, M., and Dehaene, S. (2006). Functional organization of perisylvian activation during presentation of sentences in preverbal infants. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 103, 14240–14245. Doupe, A.J., and Kuhl, P.K. (2008). Birdsong and human speech: common themes and mechanisms. In Neuroscience of Birdsong, H.P. Zeigler and P. Marler, eds. (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press), pp. 5–31. Dunbar, R.I.M. (1998). The social brain hypothesis. Evol. Anthropol. 6, 178–190. Durston, S., Thomas, K.M., Worden, M.S., Yang, Y., and Casey, B.J. (2002). The effect of preceding context on inhibition: an event-related fMRI study. Neuroimage 16, 449–453.

Gevins, A., Smith, M.E., McEvoy, L., and Yu, D. (1997). High-resolution EEG mapping of cortical activation related to working memory: effects of task difficulty, type of processing, and practice. Cereb. Cortex 7, 374–385.

Guion, S.G., and Pederson, E. (2007). Investigating the role of attention in phonetic learning. In Language Experience in Second Language Speech Learning: In Honor of James Emil Flege, O.-S. Bohn and M. Munro, eds. (Amsterdam: John Benjamins), pp. 55–77. Hari, R., and Kujala, M.V. (2009). Brain basis of human social interaction: from concepts to brain imaging. Physiol. Rev. 89, 453–479. Hauser, M.D., Newport, E.L., and Aslin, R.N. (2001). Segmentation of the speech stream in a non-human primate: statistical learning in cotton-top tamarins. Cognition 78, B53–B64. Homae, F., Watanabe, H., Nakano, T., Asakawa, K., and Taga, G. (2006). The right hemisphere of sleeping infant perceives sentential prosody. Neurosci. Res. 54, 276–280. Imada, T., Zhang, Y., Cheour, M., Taulu, S., Ahonen, A., and Kuhl, P.K. (2006). Infant speech perception activates Broca’s area: a developmental magnetoencephalography study. Neuroreport 17, 957–962.

Eales, L.A. (1989). The influence of visual and vocal interaction on song learning in zebra finches. Anim. Behav. 37, 507–508.

Immelmann, K. (1969). Song development in the zebra finch and other estrildid finches. In Bird Vocalizations, R. Hinde, ed. (London: Cambridge University Press), pp. 61–74.

Eimas, P.D. (1975). Auditory and phonetic coding of the cues for speech: discrimination of the /r–l/ distinction by young infants. Percept. Psychophys. 18, 341–347.

Johnson, J.S., and Newport, E.L. (1989). Critical period effects in second language learning: the influence of maturational state on the acquisition of English as a second language. Cognit. Psychol. 21, 60–99.

Eimas, P.D., Siqueland, E.R., Jusczyk, P., and Vigorito, J. (1971). Speech perception in infants. Science 171, 303–306.

Kirkham, N.Z., Slemmer, J.A., and Johnson, S.P. (2002). Visual statistical learning in infancy: evidence for a domain general learning mechanism. Cognition 83, B35–B42.

Englund, K.T. (2005). Voice onset time in infant directed speech over the first six months. First Lang. 25, 219–234.

Knudsen, E.I. (2004). Sensitive periods in the development of the brain and behavior. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 16, 1412–1425.

Evans, C.S., and Marler, P. (1995). Language and animal communication: parallels and contrasts. In Comparative Approaches to Cognitive Science: Complex Adaptive Systems, H.L. Roitblat and J.-A. Meyer, eds. (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press), pp. 341–382.

Krause, C.M., Sillanma¨ki, L., Koivisto, M., Saarela, C., Ha¨ggqvist, A., Laine, M., and Ha¨ma¨la¨inen, H. (2000). The effects of memory load on event-related EEG desynchronization and synchronization. Clin. Neurophysiol. 111, 2071–2078.

Ferguson C.A., Menn L., and Stoel-Gammon C., eds. (1992). Phonological Development: Models, Research, Implications (Timonium, MD: York Press).

Kuhl, P.K. (2004). Early language acquisition: cracking the speech code. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 5, 831–843.

Neuron 67, September 9, 2010 ª2010 Elsevier Inc. 725

Neuron

Review Kuhl, P.K. (2007). Is speech learning ‘gated’ by the social brain? Dev. Sci. 10, 110–120. Kuhl, P.K. (2009). Early language acquisition: neural substrates and theoretical models. In The Cognitive Neurosciences IV, M.S. Gazzaniga, ed. (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press), pp. 837–854. Kuhl, P.K., and Meltzoff, A.N. (1982). The bimodal perception of speech in infancy. Science 218, 1138–1141. Kuhl, P.K., and Meltzoff, A.N. (1996). Infant vocalizations in response to speech: vocal imitation and developmental change. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 100, 2425–2438. Kuhl, P.K., and Rivera-Gaxiola, M. (2008). Neural substrates of language acquisition. Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 31, 511–534. Kuhl, P.K., Williams, K.A., and Meltzoff, A.N. (1991). Cross-modal speech perception in adults and infants using nonspeech auditory stimuli. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 17, 829–840. Kuhl, P.K., Williams, K.A., Lacerda, F., Stevens, K.N., and Lindblom, B. (1992). Linguistic experience alters phonetic perception in infants by 6 months of age. Science 255, 606–608. Kuhl, P.K., Andruski, J.E., Chistovich, I.A., Chistovich, L.A., Kozhevnikova, E.V., Ryskina, V.L., Stolyarova, E.I., Sundberg, U., and Lacerda, F. (1997). Cross-language analysis of phonetic units in language addressed to infants. Science 277, 684–686.

Marler, P. (1991). The instinct to learn. In The Epigenesis of Mind: Essays on Biology and Cognition, S. Carey and R. Gelman, eds. (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates), pp. 37–66. Mayberry, R.I., and Lock, E. (2003). Age constraints on first versus second language acquisition: evidence for linguistic plasticity and epigenesis. Brain Lang. 87, 369–384. Maye, J., Werker, J.F., and Gerken, L. (2002). Infant sensitivity to distributional information can affect phonetic discrimination. Cognition 82, B101–B111. Maye, J., Weiss, D.J., and Aslin, R.N. (2008). Statistical phonetic learning in infants: facilitation and feature generalization. Dev. Sci. 11, 122–134. Meltzoff, A.N., and Decety, J. (2003). What imitation tells us about social cognition: a rapprochement between developmental psychology and cognitive neuroscience. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 358, 491–500. Meltzoff, A.N., Kuhl, P.K., Movellan, J., and Sejnowski, T. (2009). Foundations for a new science of learning. Science 17, 284–288. Mills, D., Coffey-Corina, S., and Neville, H. (1993). Language acquisition and cerebral specialization in 20 month old infants. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 5, 317–334. Mills, D., Coffey-Corina, S., and Neville, H. (1997). Language comprehension and cerebral specialization from 13 to 20 months. Dev. Neuropsychol. 13, 397–445. Mundy, P., and Gomes, A. (1998). Individual differences in joint attention skill development in the second year. Infant Behav. Dev. 21, 469–482.

Kuhl, P.K., Tsao, F.-M., and Liu, H.-M. (2003). Foreign-language experience in infancy: effects of short-term exposure and social interaction on phonetic learning. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 100, 9096–9101.

Nelson, D.A., and Marler, P. (1994). Selection-based learning in bird song development. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 91, 10498–10501.

Kuhl, P.K., Conboy, B.T., Padden, D., Nelson, T., and Pruitt, J. (2005a). Early speech perception and later language development: implications for the ‘critical period.’. Lang. Learn. Dev. 1, 237–264.

Neville, H.J., Coffey, S.A., Lawson, D.S., Fischer, A., Emmorey, K., and Bellugi, U. (1997). Neural systems mediating American sign language: effects of sensory experience and age of acquisition. Brain Lang. 57, 285–308.

Kuhl, P.K., Coffey-Corina, S., Padden, D., and Dawson, G. (2005b). Links between social and linguistic processing of speech in preschool children with autism: behavioral and electrophysiological measures. Dev. Sci. 8, F1–F12.

Newport, E. (1990). Maturational constraints on language learning. Cogn. Sci. 14, 11–28.

Kuhl, P.K., Stevens, E., Hayashi, A., Deguchi, T., Kiritani, S., and Iverson, P. (2006). Infants show a facilitation effect for native language phonetic perception between 6 and 12 months. Dev. Sci. 9, F13–F21. Kuhl, P.K., Conboy, B.T., Coffey-Corina, S., Padden, D., Rivera-Gaxiola, M., and Nelson, T. (2008). Phonetic learning as a pathway to language: new data and native language magnet theory expanded (NLM-e). Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 363, 979–1000. Ladefoged, P. (2001). Vowels and Consonants: An Introduction to the Sounds of Language (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers). Lasky, R.E., Syrdal-Lasky, A., and Klein, R.E. (1975). VOT discrimination by four to six and a half month old infants from Spanish environments. J. Exp. Child Psychol. 20, 215–225. Lenneberg, E. (1967). Biological Foundations of Language (New York: John Wiley and Sons). Liberman, A.M., and Mattingly, I.G. (1985). The motor theory of speech perception revised. Cognition 21, 1–36. Liu, H.-M., Kuhl, P.K., and Tsao, F.-M. (2003). An association between mothers’ speech clarity and infants’ speech discrimination skills. Dev. Sci. 6, F1–F10. Liu, H.-M., Tsao, F.-M., and Kuhl, P.K. (2007). Acoustic analysis of lexical tone in Mandarin infant-directed speech. Dev. Psychol. 43, 912–917. Liu, H.-M., Tsao, F.-M., and Kuhl, P.K. (2009). Age-related changes in acoustic modifications of Mandarin maternal speech to preverbal infants and five-yearold children: a longitudinal study. J. Child Lang. 36, 909–922. Lotto, A.J., Sato, M., and Diehl, R. (2004). Mapping the task for the second language learner: the case of Japanese acquisition of /r/ and /l. In From Sound to Sense, J. Slitka, S. Manuel, and M. Matthies, eds. (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press), pp. C181–C186.

726 Neuron 67, September 9, 2010 ª2010 Elsevier Inc.

Newport, E.L., Bavelier, D., and Neville, H.J. (2001). Critical thinking about critical periods: perspectives on a critical period for language acquisition. In Language, Brain, and Cognitive Development: Essays in Honor of Jacques Mehlter, E. Dupoux, ed. (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press), pp. 481–502. Ortiz-Mantilla, S., Choe, M.-S., Flax, J., Grant, P.E., and Benasich, A.A. (2010). Associations between the size of the amygdale in infancy and language abilities during the preschool years in normally developing children. Neuroimage 49, 2791–2799. Patterson, M.L., and Werker, J.F. (1999). Matching phonetic information in lips and voice is robust in 4.5-month-old infants. Infant Behav. Dev. 22, 237–247. Pen˜a, M., Bonatti, L.L., Nespor, M., and Mehler, J. (2002). Signal-driven computations in speech processing. Science 298, 604–607. Petitto, L.A., and Marentette, P.F. (1991). Babbling in the manual mode: evidence for the ontogeny of language. Science 251, 1493–1496. Posner M.I., ed. (2004). Cognitive Neuroscience of Attention (New York: Guilford Press). Pulvermuller, F. (2005). Brain mechanisms linking language to action. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 6, 574–582. Rabiner, L.R., and Huang, B.H. (1993). Fundamentals of Speech Recognition (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall). Rivera-Gaxiola, M., Silva-Pereyra, J., and Kuhl, P.K. (2005). Brain potentials to native and non-native speech contrasts in 7- and 11-month-old American infants. Dev. Sci. 8, 162–172. Rizzolatti, G. (2005). The mirror neuron system and imitation. In Perspectives on Imitation: From Neuroscience to Social Science – I: Mechanisms of Imitation and Imitation in Animals, S. Hurley and N. Chater, eds. (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press), pp. 55–76. Rizzolatti, G., and Craighero, L. (2004). The mirror-neuron system. Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 27, 169–192.

Neuron

Review Saffran, J.R., Aslin, R.N., and Newport, E.L. (1996). Statistical learning by 8-month-old infants. Science 274, 1926–1928. Saffran, J.R., Johnson, E.K., Aslin, R.N., and Newport, E.L. (1999). Statistical learning of tone sequences by human infants and adults. Cognition 70, 27–52. Saffran, J.R., Werker, J.F., and Werner, L.A. (2006). The infant’s auditory world: hearing, speech, and the beginnings of language. In Handbook of Child Psychology: Volume 2, Cognition, Perception and Language VI, W. Damon and R.M. Lerner, series eds., R. Siegler and D. Kuhn, volume eds. (New York: Wiley), pp. 58–108. Skinner, B.F. (1957). Verbal Behavior (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts). Taga, G., and Asakawa, K. (2007). Selectivity and localization of cortical response to auditory and visual stimulation in awake infants aged 2 to 4 months. Neuroimage 36, 1246–1252. Tamm, L., Menon, V., and Reiss, A.L. (2002). Maturation of brain function associated with response inhibition. J. Am. Acad. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry 41, 1231–1238. Teinonen, T., Aslin, R.N., Alku, P., and Csibra, G. (2008). Visual speech contributes to phonetic learning in 6-month-old infants. Cognition 108, 850–855. Teinonen, T., Fellman, V., Na¨a¨ta¨nen, R., Alku, P., and Huotilainen, M. (2009). Statistical language learning in neonates revealed by event-related brain potentials. BMC Neurosci. 10, 21. Tomasello, M. (2003a). Constructing A Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press). Tomasello, M. (2003b). The key is social cognition. In Language and Thought, D. Gentner and S. Kuczaj, eds. (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press), pp. 47–51. Tsao, F.-M., Liu, H.-M., and Kuhl, P.K. (2004). Speech perception in infancy predicts language development in the second year of life: a longitudinal study. Child Dev. 75, 1067–1084. Tsao, F.-M., Liu, H.-M., and Kuhl, P.K. (2006). Perception of native and nonnative affricate-fricative contrasts: cross-language tests on adults and infants. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 120, 2285–2294. Vygotsky, L.S. (1962). Thought and Language (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press). Wang, Y., Kuhl, P.K., Chen, C., and Dong, Q. (2009). Sustained and transient language control in the bilingual brain. Neuroimage 47, 414–422. Weber-Fox, C.M., and Neville, H.J. (1999). Functional neural subsystems are differentially affected by delays in second language immersion: ERP and

behavioral evidence in bilinguals. In Second Language Acquisition and the Critical Period Hypothesis, D. Birdsong, ed. (Mahwah, NJ: Lawerence Erlbaum and Associates, Inc), pp. 23–38. Werker, J.F., and Curtin, S. (2005). PRIMIR: a developmental framework of infant speech processing. Lang. Learn. Dev. 1, 197–234. Werker, J.F., and Lalonde, C. (1988). Cross-language speech perception: initial capabilities and developmental change. Dev. Psychol. 24, 672–683. Werker, J.F., and Tees, R.C. (1984). Cross-language speech perception: evidence for perceptual reorganization during the first year of life. Infant Behav. Dev. 7, 49–63. Werker, J.F., Pons, F., Dietrich, C., Kajikawa, S., Fais, L., and Amano, S. (2007). Infant-directed speech supports phonetic category learning in English and Japanese. Cognition 103, 147–162. West, M.J., and King, A.P. (1988). Female visual displays affect the development of male song in the cowbird. Nature 334, 244–246. White, L., and Genesee, F. (1996). How native is near-native? The issue of ultimate attainment in adult second language acquisition. Second Lang. Res. 12, 233–265. Woolley, S.C., and Doupe, A.J. (2008). Social context-induced song variation affects female behavior and gene expression. PLoS Biol. 6, e62. Yeni-Komshian, G.H., Flege, J.E., and Liu, S. (2000). Pronunciation proficiency in the first and second languages of Korean–English bilinguals. Bilingualism: Lang. Cogn. 3, 131–149. Yoshida, K.A., Pons, F., Cady, J.C., and Werker, J.F. (2006). Distributional learning and attention in phonological development. Paper presented at International Conference on Infant Studies, Kyoto, Japan, 19–23 June. Yoshida, K.A., Pons, F., Maye, J., and Werker, J.F. (2010). Distributional phonetic learning at 10 months of age. Infancy 15, 420–433. Zhang, Y., Kuhl, P.K., Imada, T., Kotani, M., and Tohkura, Y. (2005). Effects of language experience: neural commitment to language-specific auditory patterns. Neuroimage 26, 703–720. Zhang, Y., Kuhl, P.K., Imada, T., Iverson, P., Pruitt, J., Stevens, E.B., Kawakatsu, M., Tohkura, Y., and Nemoto, I. (2009). Neural signatures of phonetic learning in adulthood: a magnetoencephalography study. Neuroimage 46, 226–240.

Neuron 67, September 9, 2010 ª2010 Elsevier Inc. 727

DP MODEL AND L2 ACQUISITION (ULLMAN)

A Cognitive Neuroscience Perspective on Second Language Acquisition: The Declarative/Procedural Model MICHAEL T. ULLMAN KEY WORDS

Aphasia c basal ganglia a Broca's area a critical period declarative memory o ERP a estrogen explicit MRI frontal lobe 3. grammar s implicit language language processing -- lexicon morphology neuroimaging e PET a procedural memory puberty second language a second language acquisition (SLA) syntax a temporal lobe.

-

@

I. Introduction The neural, cognitive, and computational (i.e., neurocognitive) bases of second language acquisition and processing are still not well understood. There has been surprisingly little empirical work in this area. Data informing the specific neural substrates of second language and the relations between its neural, cognitive, and computational underpinnings have been especially sparse (e.g., what brain structures play which computational roles and how do they interact?). Given this lack of data, it is not surprising that there have been few attempts to offer integrative neurocognitive theories of second language, particularly in the context of first language and of our broader understanding of the mind and brain. In this chapter, I discuss a neurocognitive model that begins to address these theoretical gaps. According to this perspective, both first and second languages are acquired and processed by well-studied brain systems that are known to subserve particular nonlanguage functions. These brain systems are posited to play analogous roles in their nonlanguage and language functions. So our independent knowledge of the cognitive, computational, neuroanatomical, physiological, cellular, endocrine, and pharmacological bases of these systems leads to specific testable predictions about both first and second language. The model thus brings the knowledge base and empirical approaches

142

INTERNAL FACTORS

of cognitive neuroscience to bear on the study of second language acquisition

(SLA). This chapter begins by discussing the broader linguistic and neurocognitive issues, along with the neurocognitive model as it pertains to normal early-learned first language (Ll). Next, the background, theory, and extant empirical evidence regarding the acquisition and processing of second and subsequent languages are presented, with a focus on later-learned languages, particularly those learned after puberty. (Note that the term L2 is used in this chapter to refer only to such later-learned languages.) Finally, the chapter concludes with comparisons between the model and other perspectives and with a discussion of implications and issues for further study. 2.

The Neurocognition of Lexicon and Grammar

Language depends upon two mental abilities (Chomsky, 1965; Pinker, 1994). First, all idiosyncratic information must be memorized in some sort of mental dictionary, which is often referred to as the mental lexicon. The lexicon necessarily includes all words with arbitrary sound-meaning pairings, such as the noncompositional ("simple") word cat. It must also contain other irregular-that is, not entirely derivable-word-specific information, such as whether any arguments must accompany a verb (e.g., hit requires a direct object) and whether a word takes any unpredictable related forms (e.g., teach takes the irregular past tense taught). The mental lexicon may comprise other distinctive information as well, smaller or larger than words: bound morphemes (e.g., the -ed or -ness suffixes, as in walked or happiness) and complex linguistic structures whose meanings cannot be transparently derived from their parts (e.g., idiomatic phrases, such as kick the bucket) (Di Sciullo and Williams, 1987; Halle and Marantz, 1993). But language also consists of regularities, which can be captured by rules of grammar. The rules constrain how lexical forms combine to make complex representations and allow us to interpret the meanings of complex forms even if we have not heard or seen them before. Meanings can be derived by rules that underlie the sequential orders and hierarchical relations of lexical items and of abstract categories such as verbphrase. Such rule-governed behavior is found in various aspects of language, including phrases and sentences (syntax) and complex words such as walkedor happiness (morphology). The rules are a form of mental knowledge in that they underlie our individual capacity to produce and comprehend complex forms. The learning and use of this knowledge are generally implicit-that is, not available to conscious awareness. Last, although complex representations (e.g., the regular past tense form walked) could be computed anew each time (e.g., walk + -ed), they could in principle also be stored in the mental lexicon.

A COGNITIVE NEUROSCIENCE PERSPECTIVE

I43

Numerous theories and empirical studies have probed the neurocognitive bases of lexical and grammatical abilities in L1 (e.g., Damasio and Damasio, 1992; Elman et al., 1996; Friederici, 2002; Gleason and Ratner, 1998; Goodglass, 1993; Pinker, 1994). This research has addressed several interrelated issues, including the following: (a) separability: Do lexicon and grammar depend on distinct components that rely on separable neurocognitive correlates? (b) mechanisms: What mechanisms underlie the learning, representation, computation, and processing of the two linguistic capacities?(c) domain specificity: Are the underlying neurocognitive substrates dedicated to language (domain specific) or do they also subserve nonlanguage functions (that is, are they domain independent)? (d) biological correlates: What are the biological correlates of lexicon and grammar, be they brain structures, neural circuits, or molecular systems? What is the temporal order of their involvement during processing and how do they interact? Here I focus on one theoretical perspective-the declarative/procedural (DP) model (Ullman, 2001a, 2001c; Ullman, 2004; Ullman et al., 1997)which addresses these and related issues. The basic premise of the DP model is that aspects of the lexicon-grammar distinction are tied to the distinction between two well-studied brain memory systems (Ullman, 200 1c; Ullman, 2004), declarative and procedural memory, that have been implicated in nonlanguage functions in humans and other animals (Mishkin, Malamut, and Bachevalier, 1984; Schacter and Tulving, 1994; Squire and Knowlton, 2000; Squire and Zola, 1996). In the following two sections, I first discuss the nature of the two memory systems and then present the claims and predictions of the DP model as they pertain to LI. 3. Declarative and Procedural Memory The declarative memory system underlies the learning, representation, and use of knowledge about facts (semantic knowledge) and events (episodic knowledge) (Eichenbaum and Cohen, 2001; Mishkin et al., 1984; Schacter and Tulving, 1994; Squire and Knowlton, 2000). This system may be particularly important for learning arbitrary relations (e.g., that fact that Ouagadougou is the capital of Burkina Faso) (Eichenbaum and Cohen, 2001). The knowledge learned in declarative memory is at least partly (but not completely; Chun, 2000) explicit, that is, available to conscious awareness. The memory system is subserved by medial temporal lobe regions (e.g., the hippocampus), which are connected extensively with temporal and parietal neocortical regions (Suzuki and Arnaral, 1994). The medial temporal structures consolidate, and possibly retrieve, new memories (Eichenbaum and Cohen, 2001; Mishkin et al., 1984; Schacter and Tulving, 1994; Squire and Knowlton, 2000). Memories seem to eventually become independent of these

INTERNAL FACTORS

FIGURE 5.1.

Structures and regions of the brain: (A)A lateral view of anatomical structures in the lefi hemispheres of the cerebrum and the cerebellum. The same structures are found on the right side. There are four lobes in each hemisphere of the cerebrum. The frontal lobe lies anterior to (in front o j the central sulcus, above the Lateral sulcus. The temporal lobe lies inferior to (below) the lateral sulcus, going back to the occipital lobe at the back of the brain. The parietal lobe lies posterior to (behind) the central sulcus and superior to (above) the temporal lobe. (B) Brodmann ? areas of the lateral aspect of the lefi hemisphere. The same areas are found in the right hemisphere. Not shown are the Brodmann? areas of the medial aspect of the cerebrum. (C) A whole-head view of certain subcortical structures, including the basal ganglia. In each hemisphere, the basal ganglia consist of several substructures, of which the caudate, putamen, and

A COGNITIVE NEUROSCIENCE PERSPECTIVE

globw pallidus are indicated here. (D) A medial view of the cerebrum, including the hippocampw and variow structures to which it is closely connected. Figure 5. IA Jiom the public domain. Figure 5. IBJiom The human brain: Surface, three-dimensional sectional anatomy, and MRI (p. 44), by Henri M. Duvernoy, New York: Springer. Copyright 1991. Reprinted with permission. Figure 5.1 CJiom "Human diencephalon, " by Jacob L. Drisen, http:// www.driesen.com/ bdsalgdnglia-2,jpg. Copyright ZOO5 by Jacob L. Driesen, PhD. Reprinted with permission. Figure 5. ID Jiom Neuroscience (2nd ed.), 'Brain areas associated with declarative memory disorders," by Dale Purves, GeorgeJ Augustine, David Fitzpatrick, Lawrence C. Klztz, Anthony-Samuel LaMantia, James 0. McNamara, and S. Mark Williams (Eds.). Sunderland, MA.: Sinauer Associates. Copyright 2001. Reprinted with permission.

1 4 ~

INTERNAL FACTORS

structures and dependent on neocortical regions, particularly in the temporal lobes (Hodges and Patterson, 1997; Martin, Ungerleider, and Haxby, 2000). Other brain structures also play a role in declarative memory. Portions of ventro-lateral prefrontal cortex (corresponding largely to Brodmann's area [BA] 45 and BA 47) seem to play a role in the selection or retrieval of declarative memories, while parts of the right cerebellum may underlie searching for this knowledge (Buckner and Wheeler, 2001; Desmond and Fiez, 1998; Ivry and Fiez, 2000; Wagner et al., 1998). Note that I use the term declrzrative memoy system to refer to the entire system involved in the learning and use of the relevant knowledge (Eichenbaum, 2000), not just to those structures underlying memory consolidation. The declarative memory system has been intensively studied not only from functional and neuroanatomical perspectives but also at cellular and molecular levels (H. V. Curran, 2000; Lynch, 2002). The neurotransmitter acetylcholine plays a particularly important role in declarative memory and hippocampal function (Freo, Pizzolato, Dam, Ori, and Battistin, 2002; Packard, 1998). (Neurotransmitters are molecules that allow communication between neurons.) Evidence also suggests that the declarative memory system is affected by estrogen (Phillips and Sherwin, 1992; Sherwin, 1988), perhaps via the modulation of acetylcholine (Packard, 1998; Shughrue, Scrimo, and Merchenthaler, 2000). For example, estrogen improves declarative memory in women (Maki and Resnick, 2000; Sherwin, 1998) and men (Kampen and Sherwin, 1996; Miles, Green, Sanders, and Hines, 1998), and strengthens the cellular and molecular correlates of long-term hippocampal learning (McEwen, Alves, Bulloch, and Weiland, 1998; Woolley and Schwartzkroin, 1998). Moreover, testosterone, which is the main source of estrogen in men, also improves their memory (Cherrier et al., 2001). The procedural memoy system is implicated in the learning of new, and in the control of long-established, motor and cognitive skills and habits, especially those involving sequences (Aldridge and Berridge, 1998; Boecker et al., 2002; Mishkin et al., 1984; Schacter and Tulving, 1994; Squire and Knowlton, 2000; Willingham, 1998). Neither the learning nor the remembering of these procedures appears to be accessible to conscious memory. Thus the system is often referred to as an implicit memoy system. ( I use the term procedural memoy to refer only to one type of implicit, nondeclarative memory system, Squire and Zola, 1996, not to all such systems; see also section 8 below.) The system is composed of a network of several interconnected brain structures (De Renzi, 1989; Heilman, Watson, and Rothi, 1997; Hikosaka et al., 2000; Jenkins, Brooks, Nixon, Frackowiak, and Passingham, 1994; Mishkin et al., 1984; Rizzolatti, Fogassi, and Gallese, 2000; Schacter and Tulving, 1994; Squire and Zola, 1996). It depends especially on structures in the left

A COGNITIVE NEUROSCIENCE PERSPECTIVE

I47

hemisphere of the cerebrum (De Renzi, 1989; Heilman et al., 1997; Schluter, Krams, Rushworth, and Passingham, 2001) and is rooted in neural circuits that encompass the frontal lobes and the basal ganglia, which are subcortical structures that are strongly connected to frontal cortex. Evidence suggests that particular neurotransmitters of these circuits, especially dopamine, underlie aspects of procedural learning (Harrington, Haaland, Yeo, and Marder, 1990; Nakahara, Doya, and Hikosaka, 2001; Saint-Cyr, Taylor, and Lang, 1988). Within frontal cortex, two areas play particularly important roles: premotor areas, especially the region of the supplementary motor area (SMA and pre-SMA); and Broca's area, especially posterior portions of this region, corresponding largely to BA 44 (Broca's area is defined here as a part of inferior frontal cortex, including and perhaps limited to cortex corresponding to BA 44 and 45; Arnunts et a]., 1999). Other brain structures also form part of the procedural system network, including portions of inferior parietal cortex and the cerebellum (Hikosaka et al., 2000; Rizzolatti, Fogassi, and Gallese, 2001; Schacter and Tulving, 1994; Squire and Zola, 1996; Ullman, 2004; Willingham, 1998). Note that I use the term procedural memory system to refer to the entire system involved in the learning and use of motor and cognitive skills, not just to those brain structures underlying their acquisition. The declarative and procedural memory systems interact in a number of ways. Essentially, the systems together form a dynamically interacting network that yields both cooperative and competitive learning and processing, such that memory functions may be optimized (Poldrack and Packard, 2003). First of all, the two systems can complement each other in acquiring the same or analogous knowledge, including knowledge of sequences. As was initially shown in the amnesic patient H.M., the declarative memory system need not be intact for the procedural memory system to learn (Corkin, 1984; Eichenbaum and Cohen, 2001; Squire and Knowlton, 2000). However, when both systems are functioning, they can be used cooperatively to learn a given task (Willingham, 1998). The declarative memory system may be expected to acquire knowledge initially, thanks to its rapid learning abilities, while the procedural system may gradually learn the same or analogous knowledge (Packard and McGaugh, 1996; Poldrack and Packard, 2003). Interestingly, the time course of this shift from declarative to procedural memory can be modulated pharmacologically (Packard, 1999). Second, animal and human studies suggest that the two systems also interact competitively (for reviews, see Packard and Knowlton, 2002; Poldrack and Packard, 2003; Ullman, 2004). This leads to a "see-saw effect" (Ullman, 2004), such that a dysfunction of one system results in enhanced learning in the other or that learning in one system depresses the functionality of the other (Halbig et al., 2002; McDonald and White, 1993; Mitchell and Hall, 1988; Packard,

14~

INTERNAL FACTORS

Hirsh, and White, 1989; Poldrack and Packard, 2003; Poldrack et al., 2001; Poldrack, Prabhakaran, Seger, and Gabrieli, 1999; Schroeder, Wingard, and Packard, 2002; Ullman, 2004). The see-saw effect may be explained by a number of factors (Ullman, 2004), including direct anatomical projections between the two systems (Sorensen and Witter, 1983) and a role for acetylcholine, which may not only enhance declarative memory but might also play an inhibitory role in brain structures underlying procedural memory (Calabresi, Centonze, Gubellini, Marfia et al., 2000). Estrogen may also contribute to the see-saw effect, perhaps via the modulation of acetylcholine (Ullman, 2004). The two memory systems display variability in their functioning across individuals. That is, individuals differ in their ability to learn or use knowledge in one or the other system. Of particular interest here is that evidence suggests sex differences in the functionality of the two systems. Women show an advantage over men at verbal memory tasks (Halpern, 2000; Kimura, 1999; Kramer, Delis, Kaplan, O'Donnell, and Prifitera, 1997), which depend on declarative memory (Squire and Knowlton, 2000; Wagner et al., 1998). This sex difference does not seem surprising in light of the higher levels of estrogen in girls and (premenopausal) women than in boys and men (Cutler Jr., 1997; K. Klein, Baron, Colli, McDonnell, and Cutler, 1994; Wilson, Foster, Kronenberg, and Larsen, 1998). Conversely, evidence suggests that men show superior performance at a variety of tasks, such as aimed throwing and mental rotation (Kimura, 1999), which are expected to depend on the procedural system network (Ullman and Pierpont, 2005). Intriguingly, across the menstrual cycle in females, performance on some of these "male" tasks decreases with increasing estrogen and increases with decreasing estrogen (Hampson, 1990; Kimura, 1999), strengthening the view that estrogen may play a role in the see-saw effect.

4. The DP Model and L1 According to the DP model, in L1 the declarative memory system underlies the mental lexicon, whereas the procedural memory system subserves aspects of the mental grammar. (For additional discussion, see Ullman, 2OOla, 2OOlc; Ullman, 2004; Ullman et al., 1997). Each of the two memory systems is posited to play analogous roles in its nonlinguistic and linguistic functions. Declarative memory is an associative memory that stores not only information about facts and events but also lexical knowledge, including the sounds and meanings ofwords. Learning new words relies largely on medial temporal lobe structures. Eventually the knowledge ofwords becomes largely independent of the medial temporal lobe and depends upon neocortical areas, particularly in temporal and temporo-parietal regions. Middle and inferior aspects of the temporal lobe may be particularly important for storing word meanings,

.

A COGNITIVE NEUROSCIENCE PERSPECTIVE

.

whereas superior temporal and temporo-parietal regions may be more important in storing phonological word forms and possibly also for stored complex morphological and syntactic structures. These latter regions could thus serve as one type of interface between the declarative and procedural systems. Ventrolateral prefrontal cortex underlies the retrieval or selection of lexical representations stored in the temporal brain regions, while portions of the right cerebellum may underlie searching for that knowledge. Thus these frontal and cerebellar structures may be less important in receptive than in expressive language. Finally, pharmacological manipulations of acetylcholine, and endocrine manipulations of estrogen, should modulate aspects of lexical memory. The procedural system network of brain structures subserves the implicit learning and use not only of motor and cognitive skills but also aspects of a rule-governed combinatorial grammar. The system is expected to play computationally analogous roles across grammatical subdomains, including morphology, syntax, and possibly phonology. It may be especially important in grammatical structure building-that is, the sequential and hierarchical combination of stored lexical forms (e.g., walk -ed) and abstract representations (e.g., verb phrase) into complex structures. Pharmacological manipulations of dopamine, and possibly the modulation of estrogen and acetylcholine, may be expected to affect the acquisition of gammatical knowledge. The two systems should interact both cooperatively and competitively in the acquisition and use of language. For example, young children should initially learn both idiosyncratic and complex forms in declarative memory, while the procedural system gradually acquires the grammatical knowledge underlying rule-governed combinations. Increased functionality in one system may depress the other and vice versa. Thus the improvements found in declarative memory during childhood (Di Giulio, Seidenberg, O'Leary, and Raz, 1994; Kail and Hagen, 1977; Ornstein, 1978) should not only facilitate lexical acquisition but may also eventually depress the procedural learning of knowledge. Individual differences in the acquisition and use of lexical and grammatical knowledge, including sex differences, are expected. Thanks to their advantage at declarative memory, females should show superior lexical abilities as compared to males. In contrast, males may demonstrate better performance at aspects of grammar that depend on the procedural system. This difference in the functionality of the two systems also leads to the prediction that females will tend to memorize complex forms (e.g., walked) that men generally compute compositionally in the grammatical-procedural system (e.g., walk + -ed) (Ullman, 2004; Ullman et al., 2002). Thus the DP model posits that lexical and grammatical functions are largely separable and are associated with distinct computational and neural substrates

+

150

INTERNAL FACTORS

that are not dedicated to language but are rather domain independent. These substrates are well-studied brain memory systems, whose functionality may be modulated by particular pharmacological and endocrine substances and which vary with some degree of predictability across the lifespan of and between individuals. This view contrasts with two competing theoretical frameworks. Although it shares the view of traditional "dual system" or "modular" theories that lexicon and grammar are subserved by two or more distinct systems (Chomsky, 1995; Fodor, 1983; Grodzinsky, 2000; Levelt, 1989; Pinker, 1994), it diverges from their claims that domain-specific components underlie each of the capacities. (For further discussion of the issue of domain specificity, see Ullman, 2004). Conversely, while the DP model agrees with "single mechanism" (e.g., connectionist) theories that the two capacities are subserved by domain-independent mechanisms, it diverges from their claim that both capacities are linked to a single computational mechanism with broad anatomic distribution (Bates and MacWhinney, 1989; Elman et al., 1996; MacDonald, Pearlmutter, and Seidenberg, 1994; Rumelhart and McClelland, 1986; Seidenberg, 1997). The DP model alone predicts the following double dissociations: One set of links is expected among neurocognitive markers (e.g., neuroimaging activation patterns) of stored linguistic representations, conceptual-semantic knowledge, and declarative memory brain structures. A distinct set of links is expected among neurocognitive markers of grammar (across subdomains, including morphology and syntax), motor and cognitive skills, and procedural memory brain structures. My colleagues and I have previously argued in some depth that converging evidence from a wide range of psycholinguistic, developmental, neurological, electrophysiological, and neuroimaging studies largely supports this view (Ullman, 2001a, 2001c; Ullman, 2004; Ullman et al., 1997). 5. Late-Learned L2 People who learn a language at later ages, particularly after puberty, do not generally acquire the language to the level of proficiency attained by younger learners (Birdsong 1999; Hyltenstam and Abrahamsson, 2003; Johnson and Newport, 1989; Newport, 1990; Oyama, 1982). However, late language learning does not seem to cause equal difficulties for lexical and grammatical functions. In L1, studies of language-deprived children have shown that late exposure to language results in an apparently irreversible inability to acquire aspects of grammar (particularly in morphology and syntax), whereas lexical acquisition remains relatively spared (S. Curtiss, 1989; S. R. Curtiss, 1977). In L2 the picture appears to be similar. A number of studies have shown that late L2 learning negatively affects the acquisition and/or processing of grammar -

-

A COGNITIVE NEUROSCIENCE PERSPECTIVE

151

(Coppieters, 1987; DeKeyser, 2000; Hahne and Friederici, 2001; Johnson and Newport, 1989; Newport, 1993; Oyama, 1982; Patkowski, 1980; Wartenburger et al., 2003; Weber-Fox and Neville, 1996), while leaving lexical accretion (Eubank and Gregg, 1999) and lexical-conceptual processing (Hahne and Friederici, 2001; Wartenburger et al., 2003; Weber-Fox and Neville, 1996) relatively intact. However, it does not appear to be the case that late learning necessarily precludes nativelike attainment, even of grammatical abilities. Rather, a number of studies have suggested that such attainment is not in fact all that rare, given sufficient exposure to the L2 (Birdsong, 1992; Birdsong and Molis, 2001; Cranshaw, 1997; Van Wuijtswinkel, 1994; White and Genesee, 1996). 6. The DP Model and L2 The DP model makes a somewhat different set of claims and predictions for late-learned L2 than for L1 (see also Ullman, 2001b; Ullman, 2004). At least during early adulthood (see below for a discussion of L2 learning later in the lifespan), the acquisition of grammatical-procedural knowledge is expected to be more problematic than the acquisition of lexical-declarative knowledge, as compared to language learning in young children. This may be due to one or more factors that directly or indirectly affect one or both brain systems, including decreased rule-abstraction abilities due to augmented working memory capacity (see Newport, 1993), the attenuation of procedural memory, and the enhancement of declarative memory. Evidence from humans and animals suggests that motor skill learning associated with the procedural system is subject to early critical period effects (Fredriksson, 2000; Schlaug, 2001; Walton, Lieberman, Llinas, Begin, and Llinas, 1992; Wolansky, Cabrera, Ibarra, Mongiat, and Azcurra, 1999). In contrast, there are clear improvements in declarative memory during childhood, with a possible plateau in adolescence (Campbell and Spear, 1972; Di Giulio et al., 1994; Kail and Hagen, 1977; Meudell, 1983; Ornstein, 1978; Siegler, 1978). The changes in both procedural and declarativememory may be at least partly explained by the increasing levels of estrogen that occur during childhood/adolescence (in boys as well as girls, though estrogen levels are higher in girls) (Ankarberg and Norjavaara, 1999; Cherrier et al., 200 1; Cutler Jr., 1997; K. Klein et al., 1994; Klein, Martha, Blizzard, Herbst, and Rogol, 1996), since estrogen may somehow inhibit the procedural memory system as well as enhance declarative memory (Calabresi, Centonze, Gubellini, Pisani, and Bernardi, 2000; Packard, 1998; Phillips and Sherwin, 1992; Sherwin, 1988; Shughrue et al., 2000; Ullman, 2004) (also see discussion above). Additionally, the competitive interaction between the two memory systems, such that learning in one system depresses functionality of the other, leads to the possibility that the improvements in declarative

IFz

INTERNAL FACTORS

memory during childhood may be accompanied by an attenuation of procedural learning abilities. Thanks to their relative facility at declarative as compared to procedural learning, young adult L2 learners should tend to rely heavily on declarative memory, even for functions that depend upon the procedural system in L1. In particular, L2 learners should tend to memorize complex linguistic forms (e.g., walked) that can be computed compositionally by L1 speakers (e.g., walk -ed). Associative properties of lexical memory (Hartshorne and U11man, in press; Pinker, 1999; Prasada and Pinker, 1993) may lead to productivity in L2. L2 learners can also learn rules in declarative memory (e.g., in a pedagogical context), providing an additional source of productivity. Note that such rules do not depend at all upon grammatical-procedural computations; indeed, what they specify could in principle differ radically from the grammatical-procedural rules of native speakers of the target language. Memorizing complex forms and rules in declarative memory may be expected to lead to a fairly high degree of proficiency, the level of which should vary according to a number of factors. These include the amount and type of L2 exposure and individual subject differences regarding declarative memory abilities. Thus women's advantage at declarative memory should provide them with advantages at L2 learning. However, not all types of "grammatical" knowledge should be equally learnable in declarative memory. Certain complex forms will be easier to memorize than others, such as those that are shorter or more frequent. Constructions that cannot be easily memorized, such as those that involve long-distance dependencies, should cause particular difficulties. Similarly, not all declarative-memory based rules should be equally easy to learn or apply. The limitations of lexical-declarative memory lead to the expectation that this system alone is unlikely to provide full grammatical proficiency. That is, by itself this system is not predicted to supply all functions subserved by the grammatical-procedural system in L1, and so reliance on this system alone should not lead to nativelike proficiency in all aspects of !grammar. Crucially, however, the complete dysfunction of the grammatical system in L2 is notexpected. Rather, in accordance with multiple studies of the adult acquisition of nonlinguistic skills by procedural memory (Mishkin et al., 1984; Schacter and Tulving, 1994; Squire and Knowlton, 2000; Squire and Zola, 1996), practice should lead to procedural learning and improved performance. Thus with sufficient experience with L2, the language is expected to become L1-like in its grammatical dependence on the procedural system, with the potential for a high degree of proficiency. Whether or not a given individual acquires a given set of grammatical knowledge in the procedural system will depend on factors such as the type of grammatical knowledge being learned, the nature of the L2 exposure, and characteristics of the learner, such

+

A COGNITIVE NEUROSCIENCE PERSPECTIVE

I53

as intrinsic procedural learning abilities. Thus, whereas women should tend to show a faster learning rate than men during early stages of L2 learning (due to females' superior declarative memory abilities), men may show an advantage in later stages (due to a,possible male advantage at procedural memory). The claims and predictions laid out above for young adults differ somewhat for older adults. The ability to learn new information in declarative memory begins to decline in early adulthood, with more notable losses in old age (Park et al., 2002; Prull, Gabrieli, and Bunge, 2000). This pattern may be at least partly explained by the fact that estrogen levels decline with age in both sexes, especially during later years and especially in women (i.e., postmenopausal declines) (Carlson and Sherwin, 2000; Carr, 1998; Ferrini and Barrett-Connor, 1998; Sherman, West, and Korenman, 1976). To complicate matters further, while some forms of procedural learning are spared with aging, others, such as the learning of sequences containing higher level structure, appear to decline gradually across the adult years (Churchill, Stanis, Press, Kushelev, and Greenough, 2003; T. Curran, 1997; Feeney, Howard, and Howard, 2002; Howard, Howard, Dennis, Yankovich, and Vaidya, 2004; Prull et al., 2000). Therefore older adults may have more difficulty than young adults with procedural as well as declarative aspects of L2 acquisition. Thus the age-of-exposure effects in L2 acquisition that are predicted to occur across childhood and adolescence differ qualitatively from those expected to take place during adulthood. Whereas in the former case the decline in language-learning ability is predicted from a decreasing reliance on procedural memory relative to declarative memory, in the latter case the decline follows primarily from problems with declarative memory, which may be further aggravated by difficulties with procedural memory. Thus age-of-exposure effects in language learning may be explained by more than one mechanism, with different mechanisms at play during different periods of the lifespan. In sum, at lower levels of L2 experience, declarative memory is posited to subserve the learning and use not only of idiosyncratic lexical knowledge but also of complex linguistic representations. During early adulthood, women should show an advantage at L2 acquisition as compared to men. Due to the attenuation of declarative memory, older learners (especially postmenopausal women) should have particular difficulty acquiring an L2 even to low proficiency. At higher levels of L2 experience, the procedural system should be able to acquire knowledge (although again, this may be more difficult for older L2 learners), resulting in a neurocognitive pattern similar to that of L1-that is, with idiosyncratic lexical knowledge stored in declarativememory, while rule-governed complex forms are composed by the procedural system. So dissociations between simple and complex forms are expected in highexperience L2 and in LI but less so or not at all in low-experience L2. In direct

I54

INTERNAL FACTORS

comparisons between L1 and L2 within subjects, the use of complex forms should depend more on declarative memory brain structures in low-experience L2 than in L1 or high-experience L2, in which complex forms should show a greater dependence on procedural memory brain structures. In contrast, idiosyncratic lexical knowledge should be stored in declarative memory in all individuals, and therefore no lexical dissociations between L1 and either low- or high-experience L2 are expected.

7. Empirical Evidence on the Neurocognition of L2 Here I present several lines of neurocognitive evidence which speak to a number of the L2-related claims and predictions of the DP model. For further discussion on some of these data, see Ullman (2001b). Aphdsia generally refers to language impairments that result from relatively circumscribed lesions to the brain. In L1, adult-onset damage to neocortical temporal regions often leads to impaired lexical abilities, while the use of grammatically appropriate complex structures remains relatively spared. In contrast, frontal and basal ganglia lesions often produce impaired performance at grammar (across linguistic domains, including syntax and morphology), leaving lexical knowledge largely intact (Goodglass, 1993; Ullman, 2004; Ullman et al., 1997; Ullman et al., 2005). Brain damage in L2 speakers yields a different pattern. First of all, relatively circumscribed temporal lobe damage can lead to worse grammatical performance in L2 than in L1 (Ku, Lachmann, and Nagler, 1996; Ullman, 2001b). More importantly, left basal ganglia and left frontal lobe lesions have been shown to produce greater grammatical impairments in L1 than L2, as well as in the more proficient L2 as compared to the less proficient L2 (Fabbro, 1999; Fabbro and Paradis, 1995; Ullman, 2001b). This pattern is particularly striking because the damage leads to more severe problems in the earlier learned and the more proficiently spoken languages. However, left frontal or basal !ganglia damage does not appear to lead to differences in lexical performance between LI and L2 or between high- and low-proficiency L2s, even in the same patients who show worse grammatical performance in L1 than L2 or in the more proficient L2 (Fabbro, 1999; Fabbro and Paradis, 1995; Ullman, 2001b). Thus frontal and basal ganglia damage appears to be at least somewhat selective, resulting in particular impairments of grammar in L1 and proficient L2. Positron emission tomography (PET) and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) measure changes in blood flow or oxygenation levels in the brain. Since these changes are related to changes in neural activity, the techniques provide an indirect method for pinpointing the brain structures that are active during specific cognitive tasks. The representation and/or processing of

A COGNITIVE NEUROSCIENCE PERSPECTIVE

IT 5

both lexical knowledge in L1 and nonlinguistic conceptual-semantic information (i.e., knowledge about the world around us) is strongly linked to activation in temporal and temporo-parietal regions (Damasio, Grabowski, Tranel, Hichwa, and Damasio, 1996; Martin et al., 2000; Newman, Pancheva, Ozawa, Neville, and Ullman, 2001; Ullman, 2004). The selection or retrieval of this knowledge reliably leads to activation in ventro-lateral prefrontal cortex, especially in BA 45 and BA 47 (Buckner, 2000; Fiez, 1997; Poldrack, Wagner et al., 1999; Thompson-Schill, D'Esposito, Aguirre, and Farah, 1997). A wide range of tasks designed to probe syntactic processing in both receptive and expressive language have elicited preferential activation in Broca's area, especially in the region of BA 44 (Caplan, Alpert, and Waters, 1998; Embick, Marantz, Miyashita, O'Neil, and Sakai, 2000; Friederici, 2002; Friederici, 2004; Indefrey, Hagoort, Herzog, Seitz, and Brown, 2001; Moro et al., 2001; Ni et al., 2000; Stromswold, Caplan, Alpert, and Rauch, 1996). In later-learned second languages, tasks that involve only lexical-conceptual processing have been found not to yield more activation in L2 than L1 (Chee, Tan, and Thiel, 1999; Illes et al., 1999; Klein, Milner, Zatorre, Zhao, and Nikelski, 1999; Pillai et al., 2003), suggesting a common neurocognitive basis. Such tasks have also elicited greater activation in L2 than L1 in regions that may reflect the greater demands of the less-well learned L2 on articulation (putamen: Klein, Milner, Zatorre, Meyer, and Evans, 1995; Klein, Zatorre, Milner, Meyer, and Evans, 1994), on working memory (left superior BA 44 and SMA: Chee, Hon, Lee, and Soon, 2001), or on lexical retrieval and selection (left BA 45 and BA 47: Chee et al., 2001; De Bleser et al., 2003). Tasks that are expected to involve grammatical processing (e.g., sentence comprehension) have generally elicited different activation patterns in L2 and L1, in particular in temporal lobe regions, suggesting a greater dependence on these structures in L2 than in L1. Perani et al. (1996) found greater activation in L2 than L1 only in the parahippocampal gyrus, bilaterally. Similarly, in Perani et al. (1998), the only areas of activation that were found in L2 (as compared to baseline) and not in L1 were in the parahippocampal gyrus (bilaterally) and the left middle temporal gyrus. Dehaene et al. (1997) observed greater activation in L2 than in L1 in several right hemisphere temporal neocortical regions, in the left middle temporal gyrus, and in frontal regions implicated in the retrieval of declarative memories (see above; Buckner and Wheeler, 2001; Ullman, 2004). Note that although Kim, Relkin, Lee, and Hirsch (1997) did not discuss temporal lobe activation differences, the paper reported no data outside left posterior superior temporal cortex. Even early L2 learners have shown a pattern of greater temporal lobe involvement in L2 as compared to L1 (e.g, parahippocampal cortex activation in Perani et al.,

156

INTERNAL FACTORS

1998). However, as would be expected if early-acquired L2 relies on similar neurocognitive correlates as L1, some studies have found no activation differences at all between L1 and very early-acquired L2 (Chee et al., 1999; Wartenburger et al., 2003). Finally, other than the frontal regions associated with retrieval found by Dehaene et al. (1997), greater frontal lobe activation in L2 than L1 has generally not been observed (Chee et al., 1999; Kim et al., 1997; Perani et al., 1996; Perani et al., 1998, in neither experiment; Wartenburger et al., 2003, who observed greater frontal activation in late- but not judgment task). early-acquired L2, as compared to L1, in a grarnmati~alit~ Intriguingly, a recent fMRI study examining the adult acquisition of an artificial language found that early on during learning, syntactic processing involved the left hippocampus and neocortical temporal regions, including the left middle temporal gyrus (Opitz and Friederici, 2003). However, activation in these brain structures decreased across the experiment (i.e., as experience and proficiency increased), while activation increased in BA 44 within Broca's area. This finding directly supports the DP model's prediction of a shift from the declarative to the procedural system during late L2 learning. Event-related potentials (ERPs) are scalp-recorded electrical potentials that reflect the real-time electrophysiological brain activity of cognitive processes that are time locked to the presentation of target stimuli, such as words. Lexical processing in L1 and nonlinguistic conceptual processing elicit centralposterior bilateral negativities (N400s) that peak about 400 milliseconds after the presentation of the stimulus (Barrett and Rugg, 1990; Kutas and Hillyard, 1980). The N400 component depends at least in part on temporal lobe structures (McCarthy, Nobre, Bentin, and Spencer, 1995; Nobre, Allison, and McCarthy, 1994; Simos, Basile, and Papanicolaou, 1997) and has been posited to involve the declarative memory system (Ullman, 2001b, 2001~).Lexical stimuli that elicit N400 components in L1 also consistently elicit them in L2, in both low- and high-proficiency speakers (Hahne, 2001; Hahne and Friederici, 2001; McLaughlin, Osterhout, and Kim, 2004; Weber-Fox and Neville, 1996), strengthening the view that lexical-declarative memory is largely available to L2 learners. In L1, tasks involving the processing of grammatical violations often yield left anterior negativities (LANs) (Friederici, Pfeifer, and Hahne, 1993; Neville, Nicol, Barss, Forster, and Garrett, 1991). LANs have been linked to left frontal cortex and to automatic gammatical processing (Friederici, 2002; Friederici, Hahne, and Mecklinger, 1996; Friederici, Hahne, and von Cramon, 1998). It has been ~ositedthat LANs reflect processing by the grammatical-procedural system (Ullman, 2001b, 2001~).In lower proficiency L2, LANs are not found, even when the same violation elicits a LAN in L1 (Hahne, 200 1; Hahne and

A COGNITIVE NEUROSCIENCE PERSPECTIVE

IY7

Friederici, 2001; Weber-Fox and Neville, 1996). Instead of LANs, either no negativities are observed (Hahne, 2001; Hahne and Friederici, 2001), or subjects show more posterior negativities that resemble N400s more than LANs (Ullman, 200 1b; Weber-Fox and Neville, 1996). N400s have also been found in very low-proficiency L2 learners for grammatical anomalies that do not elicit a LAN (or an N400) in L1 (Osterhout and McLaughlin, 2000). Together, these findings suggest that grammatical processing in lower proficiency L2 is subserved by brain structures that are at least partially distinct from those subserving grammar in L1 and that overlap, in at least some cases, with those subserving lexical-conceptual processing. In contrast, an ERP study of adults acquiring an artificial language found that grammatical violations elicited a LAN in highly proficient learners (Friederici, Steinhauer, and Pfeifer, 2002), as would be expected after proceduralization of grammatical knowledge. Similarly, it appears that the only LAN that has been found in a natural language learned as an L2 was elicited by subjects who were proficient in the L2 (Hahne, Muller, and Clahsen, 2003). Finally, it is interesting to note that the late positive P6OO ERP component, which is linked to controlled (that is, not automatic) late syntactic processing in L1 (Friederici et al., 1996) and is not posited to depend on procedural processing (Ullman, 2001b, 2001c), is (unlike the LAN) generally displayed by L2 speakers (Hahne, 2001; Osterhout and McLaughlin, 2000; Weber-Fox and Neville, 1996). Its absence in one experiment has been attributed to floor effects, due to higher amplitude positivities in the correct condition in L2 (Hahne and Friederici, 2001). 8. Discussion In summary, the DP model posits that in the late acquisition of second or subsequent languages, learning grammar in procedural memory is more problematic than learning lexical or other linguistic knowledge in declarative memory, as compared to L1 acquisition. Thus adult second language learners rely particularly heavily on declarative memory, depending on this system not only for storing idiosyncratic lexical knowledge, but also for memorizing complex forms and "rules." However, with sufficient experience with the language, the procedural system should be able to acquire much or perhaps even all of the grammatical knowledge that it subserves in L1. Differences in L2 acquisition abilities are expected across the adult years and between individuals; because learning in declarative memory and possibly procedural memory becomes more problematic with aging during adulthood, particularly in later years, one should find increasing problems with L2 acquisition during this period. Women should tend to be faster than men at L2 acquisition, at least during

158

INTERNAL FACTORS

initial learning stages, thanks to their advantages at declarative memory, although such advantages may be eliminated following menopause. Estrogen is expected to play an important role in a number of these effects. Existing behavioral evidence, as well as neurocognitive data from braindamaged patients, neuroimaging, and event-related potentials, largely supports this perspective. However, many gaps in the data remain. For example, neurocognitive experiments have not probed the relation between L2 and either sex differences or the underlying hormonal status and have ignored changes in L2 acquisition abilities later in the lifespan. Moreover, it is important to point out that not all evidence appears to be consistent with the predictions of the DP model. Corpora studies and some research examining highly proficient L2 learners suggest that late L2 acquisition may impact irregular inflected forms and idiosyncratic language features as much as or more than regular inflected forms and abstract gammatical structure (Birdsong, 1992; Birdsong and Flege, 2001; Flege, Yeni-Komshian, and Liu, 1999; Gass and Selinker, 1994). Moreover, whereas a number of studies suggest an L2 performance advantage of females over males, in measures of general language proficiency (Boyle, 1987; Wen and Johnson, 1997), vocabulary memorization (Gardner and Lambert, 1972; Nyikos, 1990), and reading (Chavez, 2001), other investigations have found no sex differences in listening comprehension (Bacon, 1992), in reading comprehension (Phakiti, 2003), and in overall measures of achievement (Spurling and Ilyin, 1985). Still others have reported an advantage for males in certain vocabulary measures (Boyle, 1987; Scarcella and Zimmerman, 1998) and in reading (Biigel and Buunk, 1996). For further discussion on sex differences in SLA, see Bowden, Sanz, and Stafford (this volume, chapter 4). These empirical gaps and inconsistencies indicate the need for further studies, in particular for ones that are specifically designed to directly test and potentially falsify the L2-related predictions of the DP model. Crucially, these must probe not only performance but also a range of measures of the neurocognitive correlates of the learning and use of L2. Such studies should control for a variety of item, task, and subject factors that are posited to play important roles in the DP model, such as the idiosyncracy versus regularity of items and the sex, age of acquisition, years of exposure, and hormonal status of subjects. The DP perspective can be directly compared to and contrasted with a number of previous SLA hypotheses. Moreover, it leads to a number of issues for further discussion, has several implications, and suggests a range of questions for further investigation. First, it is important to emphasize that the model's claims and predictions regarding L2 are largely motivated by our independent knowledge of other

A COGNITIVE NEUROSCIENCE PERSPECTIVE

I59

areas of study, in particular of Ll and cognitive neuroscience, broadly defined. Our understanding of these areas, including the cognitive, computational, anatomical, physiological, cellular, and molecular bases of the two brain systems lead to a wide array of testable predictions. This offers far greater predictive power than hypotheses whose motivations and claims are largely restricted to language itself. Moreover, the two brain systems can be examined with a range of reliable techniques that are widely used in cognitive neuroscience, complementing and greatly strengthening those methods that have traditionally been employed in the study of SLA. Together, the theoretical and empirical advantages of the perspective presented in this chapter provide the potential to make substantial and rapid advances in our understanding of L2 acquisition and processing. Second, the DP model offers a novel explanatory framework for age-ofexposure effects-that is, for the greater difficulty in learning languages during later years. The model explains these effects largely in terms of biologically based mechanisms that affect one or both memory systems and that vary both with age and across individuals. Importantly, distinct sets of changes are posited to occur prior to and during adulthood, although in both cases the two memory systems are affected, at least in part, as a consequence of modulation by the endocrine system. This testable neurocognitive perspective differs substantially from previous explanations for age-of-exposure effects (Birdsong, 1999), such as the loss of language-specific learning mechanisms (Bley-Vroman, 1990; Pinker, 1994) and earlier learned languages interfering with L2 learning (MacWhinney, 1987; Rohde and Plaut, 1999). Third, the model's claims that L2 learners can ultimately become L1-like in their proficiency, as well as in their underlying neurocognitive correlates, contradicts the strong form of the critical period hypothesis, which denies both of these assertions (Bley-Vroman, 1990; Clahsen and Muysken, 1986; Hyltenstam and Abrahamsson, 2003; Johnson and Newport, 1989; Meisel, 1991). Importantly, the prediction of L1-like ultimate attainment in both performance and neurocognition is clearly testable using a number of well established methods. Fourth, the model strongly emphasizes variation in L2 learning aptitude, both within and across individuals. Within individuals, L2 acquisition abilities are expected to vary not only over the lifespan but even across shorter periods. Thus daily as well as seasonal fluctuations in the level of sex hormones (Kimura, 1999) should affect L2 learning and use. Differences across individuals should vary both between groups (e.g., males vs. females) and between individuals within a group, as a consequence of individual variation in the population in factors such as hormone levels. These claims allow one to make specific predictions regarding the rapidity and ultimate attainment of L2

160

INTERNAL FACTORS

acquisition. Such predictions may be made not only on the basis of general patterns regarding how the memory systems differ over time and between groups but also on the basis of neurocognitive and performance measures of the two memory systems and their biological correlates (e.g., sex hormone levels) in individual subjects. Moreover, this knowledge of group and individual subject characteristics should allow one to make distinct testable predictions for declarative and procedural aspects of L2 acquisition. For example, whereas young women may tend to show more rapid learning than men during early stages of L2 learning, as well as higher eventual levels of idiosyncratic lexical knowledge, young men might be more likely to reach L1-like levels of grammatical proficiency. Fifth, because the functional and biological characteristics of the two memory systems are reasonably well understood, one should be able to predict how to manipulate them in order to improve the rate and ultimate proficiency levels of L2 learning. For example, one should be able to exploit the functional characteristics of declarative memory, such as promoting learning in rich semantic contexts (Schacter and Tulving, 1994). The DP model also underscores the view that nativelike attainment may be achieved only through extensive practice (i.e., experience). The amount and type of experience that may be necessary to achieve this, and how experience relates to other factors, such as individual subject learning characteristics, remain to be determined. However, one should be able to optimize L2 acquisition by scheduling learning to take advantage of natural fluctuations in the endocrine system (e.g., daily, monthly, seasonal). The model also suggests a potential role for pharmacological agents in SLA. Cholinergic interventions, which can enhance declarative memory (Freo et al., 2002; Packard, 1998), may facilitate the initial stages of learning posited to depend on this system. Dopaminergic interventions, which under certain circumstances can enhance the ~roceduralsystem (Gerfen, 1995; Jankovic and Tolosa, 1993), might be helpful in promoting the acquisition of grammatical rules by this system. Moreover, as discussed above, the time course of the shift from declarative to procedural memory can also be modulated pharmacologically (Packard, 1999). Further research is clearly needed to investigate these issues. Sixth, the model may contribute to our understanding of the much-studied distinction between explicit and implicit knowledge in SLA (Bialystok, 1978, 1979; DeKeyser, 2003; N. C. Ellis, 1994, 2002; Krashen, 1985; Krashen, Scarcella, and Long, 1982; Norris and Ortega, 2001). At first blush, this distinction may seem to correspond quite closely to the declarative-proceduraldistinction proposed by the DP model, given that declarative memory has been claimed to underlie explicit knowledge while procedural memory subsewes implicit knowledge. However, there are a number of critical differences. First of

A COGNITIVE NEUROSCIENCE PERSPECTIVE

161

all, the DP model is based on claims about neurocognitive systems, whereas the explicit-implicit distinction is premised on claims about awareness. This latter distinction is somewhat problematic in that awareness is difficult not only to define but also to test (DeKeyser, 2003; Doughty, 2003; Schmidt, 1994). In contrast, the distinction between the declarative and procedural brain systems is relatively clear, and the dichotomy can be tested with a variety of methodological approaches. It is also important to note that the mapping between declarative-procedural memory on the one hand, and explicit-implicit knowledge on the other, is by no means isomorphic (one-to-one). Information stored in declarative memory may very well be explicit (accessible to conscious awareness in some sense), but there is no requirement that it must be, and recent data suggest that at least certain kinds of knowledge acquired by the declarative memory system are not explicit (Chun and Phelps, 1999; Chun, 2000). Additionally, evidence suggests the existence of more than one nondeclarative implicit memory system (Eichenbaum and Cohen, 200 1; Squire and Knowlton, 1995). Procedural memory, as it is defined in the DP model and by many memory researchers, refers only to one type of nondeclarative memory system (Eichenbaum and ; 2004; Cohen, 2001; Squire and Knowlton, 1995; Ullman, 2 0 0 1 ~ Ullman, Ullman and Pierpont, 2005). Unfortunately, the term procedural memoy has sometimes been used interchangeably with implicit memoy, resulting in quite a confusing situation (Eichenbaum and Cohen, 2001; Schacter and Tulving, 1994). Finally, most previous treatments of explicit-implicit memory in SLA have not focused on, or even clearly acknowledged, the distinction between lexicon and grammar (Bialystok, 1978; N. C. Ellis, 2002; Gass, 1997; Krashen et al., 1982). In sum, it is difficult to draw simple parallels between the explicit-implicit and declarative-procedural distinctions. Nevertheless, the clear and testable dichotomy between declarative and procedural memory and the examination of how these two brain systems relate to lexicon and grammar, across different periods of the lifespan and across individuals, may encourage SLA researchers to consider how these factors relate to the constructs of explicit and implicit knowledge. Seventh, the DP model can be directly compared to and contrasted with other neurocognitive perspectives of SLA. The model is perhaps most similar to the view espoused by Friederici and her colleagues on the basis of their fMRI and ERP data. They have concluded that low-proficiency L2 learners do not have the neurocognitive abilities of native speakers for automatic parsing and syntactic structure building in sentence comprehension, which are assumed to depend on BA 44 and certain other structures in L1 (Friederici et al., 2002; Hahne, 2001; Hahne and Friederici, 2001; Opitz and Friederici, 2003). Instead, low-proficiency learners initially depend on medial and lateral

162

INTERNAL FACTORS

temporal lobe structures, and possibly on strategy-dependent compensatory right-hemisphere processes (Hahne and Friederici, 2001; Opitz and Friederici, 2003). However, as L2 proficiency increases (with experience with the language), medial and lateral temporal lobe involvement decreases, while BA 44 involvement increases (Opitz and Friederici, 2003). In contrast, conceptualsemantic integration seems to remain largely L1-like in L2 learners (Hahne and Friederici, 2001). Friederici's data and conclusions are thus highly compatible with the DP model. The two views seem to diverge in a number of the details (e.g., the role of the basal ganglia) and in that Friederici's perspective is primarily driven by data from L2 studies, whereas the DP model's claims and predictions follow largely from our independent knowledge of the two memory systems. The DP model can also be directly compared to the view embraced by Paradis. He has proposed a model that links SLA notions of explicit and implicit knowledge to specific neural structures (Paradis, 1994, 1995, 1997, 1999,2004). Like the DP model, Paradis emphasizes a greater dependence on declarative than procedural memory in L2 as compared to L1 and in low-proficiency L2 as compared to high-proficiency L2. However, unlike the DP model, Paradis seems to assume a direct correspondence between explicit knowledge and declarative memory and between implicit knowledge and procedural memory (Paradis, 1994, 2004). Moreover, Paradis discusses the increased reliance on procedural memory (in L1 and high-proficiency L2) largely in terms of geater automatization and implicitness across various domains of language, including at least portions of the lexicon. For Paradis, only consciously accessible lexical elements are declarative, in both L1 and L2. This seems to correspond largely to vocabulary items-that is, consciously accessible knowledge of the sound-meaning pairings of words. More abstract lexical knowledge (i.e., lexicalized knowledge of grammatical properties, such as argument structure) is not declarative (Paradis, 2004). Even vocabulary items do not depend on declarative memory when they are processed implicitly (nonconsciously) in sentence contexts (Paradis, 1994). Thus Paradis' claims for the lexicon differ at least partly from those of the DP model: Whereas the DP model assumes that all lexical knowledge resides in declarative memory (whether or not the knowledge is available to conscious awareness), Paradis takes seriously the divide between explicit and implicit knowledge, and claims that only the conscious use of lexical knowledge depends on declarative memory. Paradis also diverges somewhat from the DP model with respect to neuroanatomy. He focuses on medial temporal lobe structures for declarative memory and on the basal ganglia, cerebellum, and neocortex for procedural memory; particular neocortical regions do not appear to be implicated, other than left perisylvian areas (Paradis, 1999, 2004). Finally, unlike the DP

A COGNITIVE NEUROSCIENCE PERSPECTIVE

163

model, Paradis does not seem to make further predictions based on our independent knowledge of the two memory systems, such as sex differences or modulation by sex hormones. Together these predictions enable Paradis' view to be empirically distinguished from the DP model. Finally, it is important to point out that a number of theoretical gaps remain to be addressed in the DP perspective of L2 acquisition and processing. For example, the precise relation between late SLA on the one hand, and both native language acquisition and early SLA on the other, remains to be determined. In all cases, declarative memory is predicted to acquire information much faster than procedural memory. Thus even in very young children learning their native language, complex forms as well as idiosyncratic knowledge are predicted to be memorized in declarative memory before grammatical rules are abstracted in procedural memory. Indeed, at least some evidence appears to be consistent with this view (e.g., Marcus et al., 1992). Second and subsequent languages learned during early childhood should follow much the same pattern. However, in both of these cases, the fact that language acquisition occurs early, prior to the posited changes in the two memory systems, leads to the prediction that the grammar will be acquired with greater facility than would occur in later years, particularly following puberty. Other issues, such as the rapidity of vocabulary learning during childhood (Bloom, 2000) and the role of transfer or interference from previously learned languages, also remain to be investigated. 9. Summary The DP perspective constitutes a novel alternative to previously proposed explanatory hypotheses of SLA. It leads to an array of specific predictions that are largely generated by our independent knowledge of the two memory systems and are directly testable using a range of widely used behavioral and neurocognitive methods. The predictions allow the model to be directly compared against alternative accounts and provide the means for it to be both falsified and further specified. Thus the DP model may provide a useful paradigm for the study of SLA. 10. Exercises

The following exercises are designed to increase your understanding of the neurocognition of SLA. 10.1 QUESTIONS

1. Briefly describe an experiment, using any methodology that you feel is appropriate, that could test one or more of the L2-related predictions of the DP model.

164

INTERNAL FACTORS

2. According to the DP model, might individual differences in working memory capacity lead to individual differences in SLA?Explain your answer.

3. A monolingual adult male suffers from a stroke that leads to damage to Broca's area, the basal ganglia, and surrounding structures, and to the onset of Broca's aphasia and agrammatism in his L1. Should he be able to learn an L2? Explain your answer. How might pharmacological agents improve his SLA?

4. Adult-onset bilateral damage limited to medial temporal lobe structures leads to an inability to learn new knowledge in declarative memory-that is, information about facts, events, and words. In contrast, such amnesic patients are generally able to acquire new motor and cognitive skills and other procedures, even though they do not remember the individual testing sessions. Should such patients be impaired at SLA? Explain your answer. 5. Specific Language Impairment (SLI) is a congenital disorder that affects language. It generally compromises grammatical abilities more than lexical abilities. It is also associated with a variety of impairments of nonlinguistic hnctions that are linked to the procedural memory system, while declarative memory appears to be relatively spared (Ullman and Pierpont, 2005). Thus it has been suggested that many individuals with SLI may suffer from abnormalities of brain structures underlying the procedural memory system (Ullman and Pierpont, 2005). Do you think that such individuals should show age-of-exposure period effects in language learning? Why or why not? 10.2 GUIDED CRITIQUE

T o practice your skills at reading and critiquing articles on the neurocognition of SLA, please read the following article and answer the questions below. Weber-Fox, C. M., and Neville, H. J. (1996). Maturational constraints on functional specializations for language processing: EW and behavioral evidence in bilingualspeakers.Journalof CognitiveNeuroscience, 8(3),23 1-256.

1. Motivations and hypotheses a. What are the primary motivations and goals of the study? b. What hypothesis or hypotheses are the authors testing? 2. Methodology a. ERPs. What are ERPs? What do they reveal about neural and cognitive processes? What are their strengths and weaknesses as compared to other neurocognitive methods?

A COGNITIVE NEUROSCIENCE PERSPECTIVE

165

b. Subjects. What subject groups were examined? What factors (e.g., age, education, etc.) are the subject groups matched or not matched on? Are there confounds between the subject factors of interest (e.g., age of exposure and length of exposure to the L2)? c. Materials and procedure. Why were both behavioral and ERP measures acquired? Why was only receptive language examined with ERPs? Do you think that 14 electrodes were sufficient in this study? What advantages or disadvantages might such a small number of electrodes confer? d. List the main strengths and weaknesses of the methods of this study.

3. Results. a. Explain the main behavioral results. What do you think are the most important results, and why? b. Explain the main ERP results.What do you think are the most important results, and why? c. Did one or more of the subject groups yield a pattern of results that was particularly different from that of the others? Why might this be?

4. Discussion and conclusions. a. What conclusions do the authors draw from their results? b. Are all of their conclusions justified by the data? c. Do their data suggest additional questions for study? Suggest one or more experiments to investigate any additional questions of interest.

Further Reading Birdsong, D. (2004). Second language acquisition and ultimate attainment. In A. Davies & C. Elder (Eds.), Handbook ofAppliedLinguistics (pp. 82-105). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Opitz, B., & Friederici, A. D. (2003).Interactions of the hippocampal system and the prefrontal cortex in learning language-like rules. Neuroimage, I9(4), 1730-1737. Paradis, M . (2004). A neurolinguistic theory of bilingualism. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Ullman, M. T. (2004).Contributions of memory circuits to language: The declarative/procedural model. Cognition, 92(1-2), 23 1-270.

Acknowledgments This chapter was written with support from NSF SBR-9905273, NIH :H58189, and research grants from the National Alliance for Autism Research, the Mabel Flory Trust, and Pfizer, Inc. I thank David Birdsong, Claudia Bonin, Harriet Wood Bowden, Ivy Estabrooke, Shira Fischer, Matthew Moffa, Kara Morgan-Short, Michel Paradis, Cristina Sanz, Matthew Walenski, and Robbin Wood for helpful comments.

166

INTERNAL FACTORS

References Aldridge, J. W., & Berridge, K. C. (1998).Coding of serial order by neostriatal neurons: A "natural action" approach to movement sequence. TheJournal ofNeuroscience, 18(7),2777-2787. Amunts, K., Schleicher, A., Burgel, U., Mohlberg, H., Uylings, H., & Zilles, K. ( 1 999). Broca's region revisited: Cytoarchitecture and intersubject variability. Journal of Comparative Neurology, 412(2),3 19-341. Ankarberg, C., & Norjavaara, E. (1999).Diurnal rhythm of testosterone secretion before and throughout puberty in healthy girls: Correlation with 17 beta-estradiol and dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate. journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, 84(3),975-984. Bacon, S. M. (1992). The relationship between gender, comprehension, processing strategies, and cognitive and affective response in foreign language listening. The Modern Language Journal, 76(2), 160-1 78. Barrett, S. E., & Rugg, M. D. (1990). Event-related potentials and the semantic matching of pictures. Brain and Cognition, 14(2), 20 1-2 12. Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B. (1989).Functionalism and the competition model. In B. MacWhinney & E. Bates (Eds.), The crosslinguisticstudy of sentenceprocessing(pp. 3-73). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Bialystok, E. (1978). A theoretical model of second language learning. Language Learning, 28(1),69-83. Bialystok, E. ( 1 979). An analytical view of second language competence: A model and some evidence. The Modern Language Journal, 63,257-262. Birdsong, D. (1992). Ultimate attainment in second language acquisition. Language, 68,706-755. Birdsong, D. (Ed.). (1999). Second lanpage acquisition and the criticalperiod hypothesis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Birdsong, D., & Flege, J. E. (2001).Regular-irregular dissociations in the acquisition of English as a second language. In A. H.-J. Do, L. Dominguez, & A. Johansen (Eds.), BUCLD 25: Proceedings of the 25th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 123-132). Boston, MA: Cascadilla Press. Birdsong, D., & Molis, M. (2001). On the evidence for maturational constraints in second-language acquisition. Journal of Memory and Language, 44, 235-249. Bley-Vroman, R. ( 1 990). The logical problem of foreign language learning. Linguistic Analysis, 20, 3-49. Bloom, P. (2000). How children learn the meaningr of words. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Boecker, H., Ceballos-Baumann, A. O., Bartenstein, P., Dagher, A., Forster, K., Haslinger, B., et al. (2002). A H 2 1 5 0 positron emission tomography study on mental imagery of movement sequences-the effect of modulating sequence length and direction. Neuroimage, 17, 999-1009. Boyle, J. P. (1987).Sex differences in listening vocabulary. Language Learning, 37(2), 273-284. Buckner, R. L. (2000).Neuroimaging of memory. In M. S. Gazzaniga (Ed.), The new cognitive neurosciences (pp. 817-828). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Buckner, R. L., & Wheeler, M. E. (2001).The cognitive neuroscience of remembering. Nature Review Neuroscience, 2(9),624-634.

A COGNITIVE NEUROSCIENCE PERSPECTIVE

167

Biigel, K., & Buunk, B. P. (1996). Sex differences in listening vocabulary. The Modern Language Journal, 80( I), 15-3 1. Calabresi, P., Centonze, D., Gubellini, P., Marfia, G. A., Pisani, A., Sancesario, G., et al. (2000). Synaptic transmission in the striatum: From plasticity to neurodegeneration. Progress in Neurobiology, 61, 231-265. Calabresi, P., Centonze, D., Gubellini, P., Pisani, A., & Bernardi, G. (2000). Acetylcholine-mediated modulation of striatal function. Trends in Neurosciences, 23(3), 120-126. Campbell, B., & Spear, N. (1972). Ontogeny of memory. Psychological Review, 79, 2 15-236. Caplan, D., Alpert, N., &Waters, G. (1998). Effects ofsyntactic structure and propositional number on patterns of regional cerebral blood flow. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 10(4), 54 1-552. Carlson, L. E., & Sherwin, B. B. (2000). Higher levels of plasma estradiol and testosterone in healthy elderly men compared with age-matched women may protect aspects of explicit memory. Menopause, 7(3), 168-177. Carr, B. R. (1998). Disorders of the ovaries and female reproductive tract. In J. D. Wilson, D. W. Foster, H. M. Kronenberg, & P. R. Larsen (Eds.), Williams textbook of endocrinology (9th ed.). Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders. Chavez, M. (2001). Gender in the Language clarsroom. New York: McGraw-Hill. Chee, M. W., Caplan, D., Soon, C. S., Sriram, N., Tan, E. W., Thiel, T., et al. (1999). Processing of visually presented sentences in Mandarin and English studied with fMRI. Neuron, 23(1), 127-137. Chee, M. W., Hon, N., Lee, H. L., & Soon, C. S. (2001). Relative language proficiency modulates BOLD signal change when bilinguals perform semantic judgments. Neuroimage, 13(6), 1155-1 163. Chee, M. W., Tan, E. W., & Thiel, T. (1999). Mandarin and English single word processing studied with functional magnetic resonance imaging. Journal ofNeuroscience, 13(8), 3050-3056. Cherrier, M. M., Asthana, S., Plymate, S., Baker, L., Matsumoto, A. M., Peskind, E., et al. (2001). Testosterone supplementation improves spatial and verbal memory in healthy older men. Neurology, 5570, 80-88. Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory ofsyntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chomsky, N. (1995). The minimalistprogram. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chun, M. M. (2000). Contextual cueing of visual attention. Trends in Cognitive Science, 4(5), 170-178. Chun, M. M., & Phelps, E. (1999). Memory deficits for implicit contextual information in amnesic subjects with hippocampal damage. Nature Neuroscience, 2(9), 844-847. Churchill, J. D., Stanis, J. J., Press, C., Kushelev, M., & Greenough, W. T. (2003). Is procedural memory relatively spared from age effects? Neurobiology ofAging, 24(6), 883-892. Clahsen, H., & Muysken, P. (1986). The availability of universal grammar to adult and child learners-a study of the acquisition of German word order. Second Language Research, 2, 93-1 19. Coppieters, R. (1987). Competence differences between native and near-native speakers. Language, 63(3), 544-573.

168

INTERNAL FACTORS

Corkin, S. (1984). Lasting consequences of bilateral medial temporal lobectomy: Clinical course and experimental findings in H. M. Seminars in Neurology, 4(2), 249-259. Cranshaw, A. (1997). A study of Anglophone native and near-native linguistic and metalinpistic performance. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Universitt de Montrtal. Curran, H. V. (2000). Psychopharmacologicalapproaches to human memory. In M. S. Gazzaniga (Ed.), The new cognitive neurosciences (pp. 797-804). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Curran, T. (1997). Effects of aging on implicit sequence learning: Accounting for sequence structure and explicit knowledge. Psychological Research, 60(1-2), 24-41. Curtiss, S. R. (1977). Genie: A psycholinguistic study of a modem-day "wild child. "New York: Academic Press. Curtiss, S. R. (1989). The case of Chelsea: A new test case of the criticalperiodfor language acquisition. Unpublished manuscript, University of California, Los Angeles. Cutler, G. B., Jr. (1997). The role of estrogen in bone growth and maturation during childhood and adolescence. Joumal of Steroid Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, 61(3-6), 141-144. Damasio, A. R., & Damasio, H. (1992). Brain and language. ScientiJc American, 267(3), 88-95. Damasio, H., Grabowski, T., Tranel, D., Hichwa, R., & Damasio, A. (1996). A neural basis for lexical retrieval. Nature, 380(6574), 499-505. De Bleser, R., Dupont, P., Postler, J., Bormans, G., Spellman, D., Mortelmans, L., et al. (2003). The organization of the bilingual lexicon: A PET study. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 16, 439-456. De Renzi, E. (1989). Apraxia. In F. Boller & J. Grafman (Eds.), Handbook of neuropsychology (Vol. 2, pp. 245-263). New York: Elsevier Science. Dehaene, S., Dupoux, E., Mehler, J., Cohen, L., Paulesu, E., Perani, D., et al. (1997). Anatomical variability in the cortical representation of first and second language. Neuroreport, 8(17), 3809-3815. DeKeyser, R. M. (2000). The robustness of critical period effects in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22,499-533. DeKeyser, R. M. (2003). Implicit and explicit learning. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 3 13-348). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Desmond, J. E., & Fiez, J. A. (1998). Neuroimaging studies of the cerebellum: Language, learning, and memory. Trends in Cognitive Science, 2(9), 355-362. Di Giulio, D. V., Seidenberg, M., O'Leary, D. S., & Raz, N. (1994). Procedural and declarative memory: A developmental study. Brain and Cognition, 25(1), 79-91. Di Sciullo, A. M., & Williams, E. (1987). On the dejnition of word. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Doughty, C. J. (2003). Instructed SLA: Constraints, compensation, and enhancement. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook ofsecond h n p a g e acquisition (pp. 256-3 10). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Eichenbaum, H. (2000). A cortical-hippocampal system for declarative memory. Nature Review Neuroscience, 1(1), 41-50.

A COGNITIVE NEUROSCIENCE PERSPECTIVE

169

Eichenbaum, H., & Cohen, N. J. (2001). From conditioning to conscious recollection: Memory systems of the brain. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Ellis, N. C. (Ed.). (1994). Implicit and explicit learning of lanpages. New York: Academic Press. Ellis, N. C. (2002). Reflections on frequency effects in language processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 297-339. Elman, J. L., Bates, E. A., Johnson, M. H., Karmiloff-Smith, A., Parisi, D., & Plunkett, K. (1996). Rethinking innateness: A connectionist perspective on development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Embick, D., Marantz, A., Miyashita, Y., O'Neil, W., & Sakai, K. L. (2000). A syntactic specialization for Broca's area. Proceedings of the NationalAcademy of Sciences, 97, 6150-6154. Eubank, L., & Gregg, K. R. (1999). Critical periods and (second) language acquisition: Divide et impera. In D. Birdsong (Ed.), Second language acquisition and the criticalperiod hypothesis (pp. 65-99). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Fabbro, F. (1999). The neurolinpistics of bilingualism. Hove, UK: Psychology Press. Fabbro, F., & Paradis, M. (1995). Differential impairments in four multilingual patients with subcortical lesions. In M. Paradis (Ed.), Aspects ofbilingualaphasia (Vol. 3, pp. 139-176). Oxford, UK: Pergamon. Feeney, J. J., Howard, J. H., & Howard, D. V. (2002). Implicit learning of higher order sequences in middle age. Psychology andAging, 17(2), 351-355. Ferrini, R., & Barrett-Connor, E. (1998). Sex hormones and age: A cross-sectional study of testosterone and estradiol and their bioavailable fractions in community-dwelling men. American Journal of Epidemiology, 147(8), 750-754. Fiez, J. A. (1997). Phonology, semantics, and the role of the left inferior prefrontal cortex. Human Brain Mapping, 5(2), 79-83. Flege, J. E., Yeni-Komshian, G. H., & Liu, S. (1999). Age constraints on second language acquisition. Journal ofMemory and Language, 41, 78-104. Fodor, J. A. (1983). The modularity of mind An essay onfdcultypsychology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Fredriksson, A. (2000). Maze learning and motor activity deficits in adult mice induced by iron exposure during a critical postnatal period. Developmental Brain Research, 113(1), 65-74. Freo, U., Pizzolato, G., Dam, M., Ori, C., & Battistin, L. (2002). A short review of cognitive and functional neuroimaging studies of cholinergic drugs: Implications for therapeutic potentials. Journal ofNeural Transmission, 103(5-6), 857-870. Friederici, A. D. (2002). Towards a neural basis of auditory sentence processing. Trends in Cognitive Science, 6(2), 78-84. Friederici, A. D. (2004). The neural basis of syntactic processes. In M. S. Gazzaniga (Ed.), The cognitive neurosciences III (pp. 789-801). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Friederici, A. D., Hahne, A., & Mecklinger, A. (1996). The temporal structure of syntactic parsing: Early and late effects elicited by syntactic anomalies.Journal ofExperimental Psychology: Learning, Memo y, and Cognition, 22(5), 1219-1 248. Friederici, A. D., Hahne, A., & von Cramon, D. Y. (1998). First-pass versus secondpass parsing processes in a Wernicke's and a Broca's aphasic: Electrophysiological evidence for a double dissociation. Brain and Language, 62(3), 31 1-341.

170

INTERNAL FACTORS

Friederici, A. D., Pfeifer, E., & Hahne, A. (1993).Event-related brain potentials during natural speech processing: Effects of semantic, morphological, and syntactic violations. Cognitive Brain Research, 1(3), 183-1 92. Friederici, A. D., Steinhauer, K., & Pfeifer, E. (2002). Brain signatures of artificial language processing: Evidence challenging the critical period hypothesis. Proceedings of the NationalAcademy of Sciences, 93(1), 529-534. Gardner, R. C., & Lambert, W. E. (1972).Attitudes and motivation in second language learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Gass, S. M. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Gass, S. M., & Selinker, L. (1994). Second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Gerfen, C. R. (1995). Dopamine receptor hnction in the basal ganglia. Clinical Neuropharmacology, 18, S162-5 177. Gleason, J. B., & Ratner, N. B. (Eds.). (1998).Psycholinguistics(2nd ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace College. Goodglass, H. ( 1 993). Understandingaphasia. New York: Academic Press. Grodzinsky, Y. (2000).The neurology of syntax: Language use without Broca's area. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23(1), 1-71. Hahne, A. (2001). What's different in second-language processing? Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Journal of Psycholinguist Research, 30(3), 25 1-266. Hahne, A,, & Friederici, A. D. (2001). Processing a second language: Late learners' comprehension strategies as revealed by event-related brain potentials. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 4, 123-14 1. Hahne, A., Muller, J., & Clahsen, H. (2003).Second language learner's processing of inflected words: Behavioral and ERP evidence for storage and decomposition. Essex Research Reports in Linguistics, 45, 1 4 2 . Halbig, T . D., Gruber, D., Scherer, P., Kopp, U. A., Trottenberg, T., & Kupsch, A. (2002). Subthalamic high j?equency stimulation dzfferentially modulates declarative and nondeclarative memory. Paper resented at the Society for Neuroscience Annual Meeting, Orlando, FL. Halle, M., & Marantz, A. (1993). Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In K. Hale & S. J. Keyser (Eds.), The viewfiom Building 2 0 (pp. 11 1-176). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Hal~ern,D. F. (2000). Sex differences in cognitive abilities (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Hampson, E. (1990).Variations in sex-related cognitive abilities across the menstrual cycle. Brain and Cognition, 14(1),26-43. Harrington, D. L., Haaland, K. Y., Yeo, R. A., & Marder, E. (1990). Procedural memory in Parkinson's disease: Impaired motor but not visuoperceptual learning. Journal of Clinical and Eqerimental Neuropsychology, 12(2),323-339. Hartshorne, J. K., & Ullman, M. T. (in press). Why girls say "holded more than boys. Developmental Science. Heilman, K. M., Watson, R. T., & Rothi, L. G. (1997). Disorders of skilled movements: Limb apraxia. In T. E. Feinberg & M. J. Farah (Eds.), Behavioral neurology and neuropsychology (pp. 227-235). New York: McGraw-Hill.

A COGNITIVE NEUROSCIENCE PERSPECTIVE

171

Hikosaka, O., Sakai, K., Nakahara, H., Lu, X., Miyachi, S., Nakamura, K., et al. (2000). Neural mechanisms for learning of sequential procedures. In M. S. Gazzaniga (Ed.), The new cognitive neurosciences (pp. 553-572). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Hodges, J. R., & Patterson, K. (1997). Semantic memory disorders. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 1(2), 68-72. Howard, J. H., Jr., Howard, D. V., Dennis, N. A., Yankovich, H., & Vaidya, C. J. (2004). Implicit spatial contextual learning in healthy aging. Neuropsychology, 18, 124134. Hyltenstam, K., & Abrahamsson, N. (2003). Maturational constraints in SLA. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second kznguage acquisition (pp. 539-588). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Illes, J., Francis, W. S., Desmond, J. E., Gabrieli, J. D., Glover, G. H., Poldrack, R., et al. (1999). Convergent cortical representation of semantic processing in bilinguals. Brain and Language, 70(3), 347-363. Indefrey, P., Hagoort, P., Herzog, H., Seitz, R., & Brown, C. (2001). Syntactic processing in left prefrontal cortex is independent of lexical meaning. Neuroimage, 14(3), 546-555. Ivry, R. B., & Fiez, J. A. (2000). Cerebellar contributions to cognition and imagery. In M. S. Gazzaniga (Ed.), The new cognitive neurosciences (pp. 999-101 1). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Jankovic, J., & Tolosa, E. E. (1993). Parkinson i disease and movement disorders. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins. Jenkins, I. H., Brooks, D. J., Nixon, P. D., Frackowiak, R. S., & Passingham, R. E. (1994). Motor sequence learning: A study with positron emission tomography. Journal of Neuroscience, 14(6), 3775-3790. Johnson, J. S., & Newport, E. L. (1989). Critical period effects in second language learning: The influence of maturational state on the acquisition of English as a second language. Cognitive Psychology, 21(1), 60-99. Kail, R. V., & Hagen, J. W. (1977). Perspectives on the development of memory and cognition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Kampen, D. L., & Sherwin, B. B. (1996). Estradiol is related to visual memory in healthy young men. Behavioral Neuroscience, 110(3), 613-6 17. Kim, K. H. S., Relkin, N. R., Lee, K.-M., & Hirsch, J. (1997). Distinct cortical areas associated with native and second languages. Nature, 388, 171-174. Kimura, D. (1999). Sex and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Klein, D., Milner, B., Zatorre, R. J., Meyer, E., & Evans, A. C. (1995). The neural substrates underlying word generation: A bilingual functional-imaging study. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 92(7), 2899-2903. Klein, D., Milner, B., Zatorre, R. J., Zhao, V., & Nikelski, J. (1999). Cerebral organization in bilinguals: A PET study of Chinese-English verb generation. Neuroreport, 10(13), 2841-2846. Klein, D., Zatorre, R. J., Milner, B., Meyer, E., & Evans, A. C. (1994). Left putaminal activation when speaking a second language: Evidence from PET. Neuroreport, 5(17), 2295-2297.

172

INTERNAL FACTORS

Klein, K., Baron, J., Colli, M., McDonnell, D., & Cutler, G. (1994).Estrogen levels in childhood determined by an ultrasensitive recombinant cell bioassay. Journal of Clinical Investigation, 94(6), 2475-2480. Klein, K., Martha, P., Blizzard, R., Herbst, T., & Rogol, A. (1996).A longitudinal assessment of hormonal and physical alterations during normal puberty in boys. 11. Estrogen levels as determined by an ultrasensitive bioassay. journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, 81(9),3203-3207. Kramer, J. H., Delis, D. C., Kaplan, E., O'Donnell, L., & Prifitera, A. (1997).Developmental sex differences in verbal learning. Neuropycbology, 11(4), 577-584. Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis. London: Longman. Krashen, S. D., Scarcella, R. C., & Long, M. H. (Eds.). (1982). Child-adultdzfferences in second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Ku, A., Lachmann, E. A., & Nagler, W. (1996).Selective language aphasia from herpes simplex encephalitis. Pediatric Neurology, 15(2), 169-171. Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S. A. (1980).Reading senseless sentences: Brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity. Science, 207(1), 203-205. Levelt, W. J . M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Lynch, G. (2002). Memory enhancement: The search for mechanism-based drugs. Nature Neuroscience, 5(Supplement), 1035-1 038. MacDonald, M. C., Pearlmutter, N. J., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1994).Lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review, I01(4), 676-703. MacWhinney, B. (1987). Applying the competition model to bilingualism. Applied Psycholinguistics, 8, 41 5 4 3 1. Maki, P. M., & Resnick, S. M. (2000). Longitudinal effects of estrogen replacement therapy on PET cerebral blood flow and cognition. Neurobiology ofAging, 21(2), 373-383. Marcus, G. F., Pinker, S., Ullman, M., Hollander, M., Rosen, T. J., &Xu, F. (1992). Overregularization in language acquisition. Monographs of the Societyfor Research in ChildDevelopment, 57(4, Serial No. 228), 1-165. Martin, A., Ungerleider, L. G., & Haxby, J. V. (2000). Category specificity and the brain: The sensorylmotor model of semantic representations of objects. In M. S. Gazzaniga (Ed.), The cognitive neurosciences (pp. 1023-1 036). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. McCarthy, G., Nobre, A. C., Bentin, S., & Spencer, D. D. (1995).Language-related field potentials in the anterior-medial temporal lobe: I. Intracranial distribution and neural generators. The Journal ofNeuroscience, 15(2), 1080-1089. McDonald, R., &White, N. (1993).A triple dissociation of memory systems: Hippocampus, amygdala, and dorsal striatum. Behavioral Neuroscience, 107(1),3-22. McEwen, B. S., Alves, S. E., Bulloch, K., & Weiland, N. G. (1998). Clinically relevant basic science studies of gender differences and sex hormone effects. Psycbopharmacohg Bulletin, 34(3),25 1-259. McLaughlin, J., Osterhout, L., & Kim, A. (2004). Neural correlates of second-language word learning: Minimal instruction produces rapid change. Nattlre Nearoscience, 7(7),703-704. Meisel, J. M. (1991).Principles of Universal Grammar and strategies of language use: O n some similarities and differences between first and second language acquisition.

A COGNITIVE NEUROSCIENCE PERSPECTIVE

I73

In L. Eubank (Ed.), Point counterpoint: Universal Grammar in the second language (pp. 231-276). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Meudell, P. R. (1983). The development and dissolution of memory. In A. Mayes (Ed.), Memory in animals and humans. New York: Van Nostrand-Reinhold. Miles, C., Green, R., Sanders, G., & Hines, M. (1998). Estrogen and memory in a transsexual population. Hormones and Behavior, 34(2), 199-208. Mishkin, M., Malamut, B., & Bachevalier,J. (1984). Memories and habits: Two neural systems. In G. Lynch, J. L. McGaugh, & N. W. Weinburger (Eds.), Neurobiology of learning and memory (pp. 65-77). New York: Guilford Press. Mitchell, J. A., & Hall, G. (1988). Caudate-putamen lesions in the rat may impair or potentiate maze learning depending upon availability of stimulus cues and relevance of response cues. QuarterlyJournal of Experimental Psychology B, 40(3), 243-258. Moro, A., Tettamanti, M., Perani, D., Donati, C., Cappa, S. F., & Fazio, F. (2001). Syntax and the brain: Disentangling grammar by selective anomalies. Neuroimage, 13(1), 110-1 18. Nakahara, H., Doya, K., & Hikosaka, 0. (2001). Parallel cortico-basal ganglia mechanisms for acquisition and execution of visuomotor sequences-a computational approach. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 13(5),626-647. Neville, H., Nicol, J. L., Barss, A., Forster, K. I., & Garrett, M. F. (1991). Syntactically based sentence processing classes: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 3(2), 151-165. Newman, A. J., Pancheva, R., Ozawa, K., Neville, H. J., & Ullman, M. T. (2001). An event-related fMRI study of syntactic and semantic violations. Journal of Pycholinguistic Research, 30(3), 339-364. Newport, E. L. (1990). Maturational constraints on language learning. Cognitive Science, 14(1), 11-28. Newport, E. L. (1993). Maturational constraints on language learning. In P. Bloom (Ed.), Lanpage Acquisition (pp. 543-560). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Ni, W., Constable, R. T., Menci, W. E., Pugh, K. R., Fulbright, R. K., Shaywitz, S. E., et al. (2000). An event-related neuroimaging study distinguishing form and content in sentence processing. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 12(1), 120-133. Nobre, A. C., Allison, T., & McCarthy, G. (1994). Word recognition in the human inferior temporal lobe. Nature, 372, 260-263. Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2001). Does type of instruction make a difference?Substantive findings from a meta-analytic review. Language Learning, 51(1), 157-213. Nyikos, M. (1990). Sex-related differences in adult language learning: Socialization and memory factors. The Modern Language Journal, 74(3), 273-287. Opitz, B., & Friederici, A. D. (2003). Interactions of the hippocampal system and the prefrontal cortex in learning language-like rules. Neuroimage, 13(4), 1730-1737. Ornstein, P. A. (1978). Memory development in children. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Osterhout, L., & McLaughlin, J. (2000). What brain activiq can tell us about second-kznguage learning. Paper presented at the 13th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, La Jolla, CA. Oyama, S. (1982). The sensitive period and comprehension of speech. In S. D. Krashen, R. C. Scarcella, & M. H. Long (Eds.), Child-adultdzferences in secondlanpage acquisition (pp. 39-51). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

174

INTERNAL FACTORS

Packard, M. G., Hirsh, R., & White, N. (1989). Differential effects of fornix and caudate nucleus lesions on two radial maze tasks: Evidence for multiple memory systems. The Journal of Neuroscience, 9(5), 1465-1472. Packard, M. G. (1998). Posttraining estrogen and memory modulation. Hormones and Behavior, 34(2), 126-1 39. Packard, M. G. (1999). Glutamate infused posttraining into the hippocampus or caudate-putamen differentiallystrengthens place and response learning. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States ofAmerica, 96(22), 1288112886. Packard, M. G., & Knowlton, B. J. (2002). Learning and memory functions of the basal ganglia. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 25, 563-593. Packard, M. G., & McGaugh, J. L. (1996). Inactivation of hippocampus or caudate nucleus with lidocaine differentially affects expression of place and response learning. Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, 65(1), 65-72. Paradis, M. (1994). Neurolinguistic aspects of implicit and explicit memory: Implications for bilingualism and SLA. In N. C. Ellis (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of langzlages (pp. 393-41 9). New York: Academic Press. Paradis, M. (1995). Introduction: The need for distinctions. In M. Paradis (Ed.), Apects of bilingual aphasia (Vol. 3, pp. 1-9). Oxford, UK: Pergamon. Paradis, M. (1997). The cognitive neuropsychology of bilingualism. In A. M. B. de Groot & J. F. Kroll (Eds.), Tutorials in bilinpalim: Pycholinpisticper~ectives (pp. 331-354). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Paradis, M. (1999). Neuroimagingstudies of the bilingual brain: Some words of caution. Paper presented at the 25th Lacus Forum, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada. Paradis, M. (2004). A neurolinpistic theory of bilingualism. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Park, D. C., Lautenschlager, G., Hedden, T., Davidson, N., Smith, A. D., & Smith, P. (2002). Models of visuospatial and verbal memory across the adult life span. Pychology andAging, 16 299-320. Patkowski, M. S. (1980). The sensitive period for the acquisition of syntax in a second language. Language Learning, 30(2), 449-472, Perani, D., Dehaene, S., Grassi, F., Cohen, L., Cappa, S. F., Dupoux, E., et al. (1996). Brain processing of native and foreign languages. Neuroreport, 7(15-17), 24392444. Perani, D., Paulesu, E., Galles, N. S., Dupoux, E., Dehaene, S., Bettinardi, V., et al. (1998). The bilingual brain. Proficiency and age of acquisition of the second language. Brain, 121(10), 1841-1852. Phakiti, A. (2003). A closer look at gender and strategy use in L2 reading. Lanpage Learning, 53(4), 649-702. Phillips, S. M., & Sherwin, B. B. (1992). Effects of estrogen on memory function in surgically menopausal women. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 17(5), 485-495. Pillai, J. J., Araque, J. M., Allison, J. D., Suthuraman, S., Loring, D. W., Thiruvaiy, D., et al. (2003). Functional MRI study of semantic and phonological language processing in bilingual subjects: Preliminary findings. NeuroImage, 19, 565-576. Pinker, S. (1994). The language instinct. New York: William Morrow.

A COGNITIVE NEUROSCIENCE PERSPECTIVE

I75

Pinker, S. (1999). Words and rules: The ingredients of hnguage. New York: Basic Books. Pinker, S., & Ullman, M. T. (2002). The past and future of the past tense. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6(1 I), 456463. Poldrack, R. A., & Packard, M. G. (2003). Competition among multiple memory systems: Converging evidence from animal and human brain studies. Neuropsychologid, 41(3), 245-251. Poldrack, R. A., Clark, J., Pare-Blagoev, E. J., Shohamy, D., Moyano, J. C., Myers, C., et al. (2001). Interactive memory systems in the human brain. Nature, 414, 546-550. Poldrack, R. A., Prabhakaran, V., Seger, C. A., & Gabrieli, J. D. (1999). Striatal activation during acquisition of a cognitive skill. Neuropsycholog, 13(4), 564-574. Poldrack, R. A., Wagner, A. D., Prull, M. W., Desmond, J. E., Glover, G. H., & Gabrieli, J. D. (1999). Functional specialization for semantic and phonological processing in the left inferior prefrontal cortex. NeuroImage, 110(1), 15-35. Prasada, S., & Pinker, S. (1993). Generalization of regular and irregular morphological patterns. Lanpage and Cognitive Processes, 8(1), 1-56. Prull, M. W., Gabrieli, J. D. E., & Bunge, S. A. (2000). Age-related changes in memory: A cognitive neuroscience perspective. In F. I. M. Craik & T. A. Salthouse (Eds.), The handbook of aging and cognition (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Rizzolatti, G., Fogassi, L., & Gallese, V. (2000). Cortical mechanisms subserving object grasping and action recognition: A new view on the cortical motor functions. In M. S. Gazzaniga (Ed.), The new cognitive neurosciences (pp. 539-552). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Rizzolatti, G., Fogassi, L., & Gallese, V. (2001). Ne~roph~siological mechanisms underlying the understanding and imitation of action. Nature Review Neuroscience, 2(9), 661-670. Rohde, D. L., & Plaut, D. C. (1999). Language acquisition in the absence of explicit negative evidence: How important is starting small? Cognition, 72(1), 67-109. Rumelhart, D. E., & McClelland, J. L. (1986). O n learning the past tenses of English verbs. In J. L. McClelland, D. E. Rumelhart, & PDP Research Group (Eds.), Parallel distributedprocessing:Explorations in the microstructures of cognition (Vol. 2, pp. 2 16271). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Saint-Cyr, J. A., Taylor, A. E., & Lang, A. E. (1988). Procedural learning and neostriatal dysfunction in man. Brain, 111(4), 941-959. Scarcella, R., & Zimmerman, A. (1998). Academic words and gender: ESL student performance on a test of academic lexicon. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20,27-49. Schacter, D. L., & Tulving, E. (Eds.). (1994). Memoysystems 1994.Cambridge, M A : MIT Press. Schlaug, G. (2001). The brain of musicians: A model for functional and structural adaptation. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 930(1), 281-299. R. E. (2001). CereSchluter, N. D., Krams, M., Rushworth, M. F. S., & Passingham, bra1 dominance for action in the human brain: The selection of actions. Neuropsychologia, 39(2), 105-1 13.

1 7 ~

INTERNAL FACTORS

Schmidt, R. (1994). Implicit learning and the cognitive unconscious: Of artificial grammars and SLA. In N. C. Ellis (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp. 165-209). New York: Academic Press. Schroeder, J. A., Wingard, J., & Packard, M. G. (2002). Post-training reversible inactivation of the dorsal hippocampus reveals interference between multiple memory systems. Hippocampus, 12, 280-284. Seidenberg, M. S. (1997). Language acquisition and use: Learning and applying probabilistic constraints. Science, 275, 1599-1603. Sherman, B. M., West, J. H., & Korenman, S. G. (1976). The menopausal tradition: Analysis of LH, FSH, estradiol, and progesterone concentrations during menstrual cycles of older women. ]ournal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, 42, 629636. Sherwin, B. B. (1988). Estrogen and/or androgen replacement therapy and cognitive functioning in surgically menopausal women. Pychoneuroendocrinology, 13(4), 345357. Sherwin, B. B. (1998). Estrogen and cognitive functioning in women. Proceedings of the Societyfor Experimental Biology and Medicine, 217(1), 17-22. Shughrue, P. J., Scrimo, P. J., & Merchenthaler, I. (2000). Estrogen binding and estrogen receptor characterization (ERalpha and ERbeta) in the cholinergic neurons of the rat basal forebrain. Neuroscience, 96(1), 41-49. Siegler, R. S. (Ed.). (1978). Children? thinking: What develops? Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Simos, P. G., Basile, L. F. H., & Papanicolaou, A. C. (1997). Source localization of the N400 response in a sentence-reading paradigm using evoked magnetic fields and magnetic resonance imaging. Brain Research, 762(1-2), 29-39. Sorensen, K., & Witter, M. (1983). Entorhinal efferents reach the caudato-putamen. Neuroscience Letters, 35(3), 259-264. Spurling, S., & Ilyin, D. (1985). The impact of learner variables on language test performance. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 283-30 1. Squire, L. R., & Knowlton, B. J. (1995). Memory, hippocampus, and brain systems. In M. S. Gazzaniga (Ed.), The cognitive neurosciences (pp. 825-837). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Squire, L. R., & Knowlton, B. J. (2000). The medial temporal lobe, the hippocampus, and the memory systems of the brain. In M. S. Gazzaniga (Ed.), The new cognitive neurosciences (pp. 765-780). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Squire, L. R., & Zola, S. M. (1996). Structure and function of declarative and nondeclarative memory systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States ofAmerica, 93, 13515-1 3522. Stromswold, K., Caplan, D., Alpert, N., & Rauch, S. (1996). Localization of syntactic comprehension by positron emission tomography. Brain and Language, 52, 452473. Suzuki, W. A., & Amaral, D. G. (1994). Perirhinal and parahippocampal cortices of the macaque monkey: Cortical afferants.Journal ofComparative Neurology, 350(4). 497-533. Thompson-Schill, S. L., D'Esposito, M., Aguirre, G. K., & Farah, M. J. (1997). Role of left inferior prefrontal cortex in retrieval of semantic knowledge: A reevaluation.

A COGNITIVE NEUROSCIENCE PERSPECTIVE

I77

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 94(26), 14792-14797. Ullman, M. T. (2001a). The declarativelprocedural model of lexicon and grammar. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 30(1), 37-69. Ullman, M. T. (200 1b). The neural basis of lexicon and grammar in first and second language: The declarative/procedural model. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 4(1), 105-122. Ullman, M. T. (2001~).A neurocognitive perspective on language: The declarativelprocedural model. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 2, 717-726. Ullman, M. T. (2004). Contributions of memory circuits to language: The declarativelprocedural model. Cognition, 92(1-2), 23 1-270. Ullman, M. T., Corkin, S., Coppola, M., Hickok, G., Growdon, J. H., Koroshetz, W. J., et al. (1997). A neural dissociation within language: Evidence that the mental dictionary is part of declarative memory, and that grammatical rules are processed by the procedural system. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 9(2), 266276. Ullman, M. T., Estabrooke, I. V., Steinhauer, K., Brovetto, C., Pancheva, R., Ozawa, K., et al. (2002). Sex differences in the neurocognition of language. Brain and Language, 83, 141-143. Ullman, M. T., Izvorski, R., Love, T., Yee, E., Swinney, D., & Hickok, G. (2005). Neural correlates of lexicon and grammar: Evidence from the production, reading, and judgment of inflection in aphasia. Brain and Language, 93(2), 185-238. Ullman, M. T., & Pierpont, E. I. (2005). Specific Language Impairment is not specific to language: The procedural deficit hypothesis. Cortex, 41, 399-433. Van Wuijtswinkel, K. (1994). Criticalperiod effects on the acquisition ofgrammatical competence in a second language. Unpublished BA thesis, Katholieke Universiteit, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. Wagner, A. D., Schacter, D. L., Rotte, M., Koutstaal, W., Maril, A., Dale, A. M., et al. (1998). Building memories: Remembering and forgetting of verbal experiences as predicted by brain activity. Science, 281(5380), 1188-1 191. Walton, K. D., Lieberman, D., Llinas, A., Begin, M., & Llinas, R. R. (1992). Identification of a critical period for motor development in neonatal rats. Neuroscience, 51(4), 763-767. Wartenburger, I., Heekeren, H. R., Abutalebi, J., Cappa, S. F., Villringer, A., & Perani, D. (2003). Early setting of grammatical processing in the bilingual brain. Neuron, 37, 159-170. Weber-Fox, C. M., & Neville, H. J. (1996). Maturational constraints on functional specializations for language processing: ERP and behavioral evidence in bilingual speakers. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 8(3), 231-256. Wen, Q., &Johnson, R. K. (1997). L2 learner variables and English achievements: A study of tertiary-level English majors in China. Applied Linguistics, 18, 27-48. White, L., & Genesee, F. (1996). How native is near-native?The issue of ultimate attainment in adult second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 12(3), 233-265. Willingham, D. B. (1998). A ne~rops~chological theory of motor skill learning. Psychological Review, 105(3), 558-584.

178

INTERNAL FACTORS

Wilson, J. D., Foster, D. W., Kronenberg, H. M., & Larsen, P. R. (Eds.). (1998). Williams textbook of endocrinology (9th ed.). Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders. Wolansky, M. J., Cabrera, R. J., Ibarra, G. R., Mongiat, L., & Azcurra, J. M. (1999). Exogenous NGF alters a critical motor period in rat striaturn. Neuroreport, 10(13), 2705-2709. Woolley, C. S., & Schwartzkroin, P. A. (1998). Hormonal effects on the brain. Epilepsia, 33(8), S2-8.

NEW PARADIGM FOR L2 LEARNING: THE NEUROLINGUISTIC APROACH (NETTEN & GERMAIN, 2012)

THEORETICAL ARTICLE

A new paradigm for the learning of a second or foreign language: the neurolinguistic approach Joan NETTEN1, * and Claude GERMAIN2, * 1

Memorial University of Newfoundland Université du Québec à Montréal * Emails: [email protected] and [email protected] 2

Abstract This article considers the contribution of research in neuroscience to resolving the question of how to develop communication skills in a second language in an institutional setting. The purpose of the article is to demonstrate how the findings of cognitive neuroscience can assist educators to understand the complexity of learning and, as a result, to develop more effective instructional practices. The article begins with a brief description of the two options for the learning of French as a second language currently offered in the Canadian school system and the deficiencies inherent in these programs for a country attempting to foster English-French bilingualism in its anglophone citizens. Secondly, the paradigm underlying the core French option, based on cognitive psychology, is examined and its limitations are discussed. The remainder of the article presents the Neurolinguistic Approach (NLA) as developed by the authors, explaining its bases in cognitive neuroscience, the ensuing five major principles of the approach, with the pedagogical consequences that each one entails. Reference is then made to two classroom applications of the NLA: intensive French implemented widely in Canada and another adaptation implanted in China. After comparing the approach briefly with French immersion, limitations of the NLA are presented, and the article concludes with some directions for future research. The positive results of the practical applications of the NLA indicate the important contribution research in cognitive neuroscience can make to improving learning in a classroom situation.

ISSN: 1929-1833

© 2012 Neuroeducation - December 2012 | Volume 1 | Number 1

85

Netten and Germain

A new paradigm for the learning of a second or foreign language

1. Introduction The Neurolinguistic Approach (NLA) to second/foreign language (L2/FL) acquisition is a new paradigm for the teaching/learning of communication skills in an L2/FL in the school system. This new pedagogical approach has been conceptualized by Netten and Germain in the context of the emerging influence of neuroscience on education. It is based primarily on the research of Paradis (1994, 2004, 2009), N. Ellis (2011) and Segalowitz (2010), and is also influenced by the research on social interaction by Vygotsky (1962). Research from four other Canadian applied linguists has also been incorporated into the new paradigm: Lyster (2007), Lyster & Ranta (1997) and Lightbown & Spada (1994).

2. Current options for learning French as a second language (FSL) in Canada In Canada, since the 1960s, we have had two types of French secondlanguage programs in the school system: the regular program, referred to as “core French” and French immersion. Core French generally consists of approximately 90 to 120 hours of instruction per school year, offered in daily periods of 30 to 50 minutes during which students learn the basics of the language through exercises and practice. This program, as offered in most provinces or territories of Canada, begins in grade 4, though in some situations instruction may begin in the primary grades, and continues to the end of grade 9 or 10. It may be continued as an optional subject to the end of secondary school. Students who remain in the program to the end of secondary school receive approximately 1200 hours of instruction (Sénéchal, 2004). Immersion consists of the appropriation of the second language through the use of French to learn the subject matter of the school curriculum. This program, first implemented in St-Lambert in the province of Québec in 1965, has expanded across Canada and is also widely known internationally. Initially introduced in the first year of schooling, other starting points have been adopted giving three variations of the approach: early, middle and late immersion (Rebuffot, 1993). In the first years of the program, nearly 100 percent of instruction is in French; as the program progresses through the grades, the percentage of instruction in French decreases. By the end of secondary school, students have received between 3000 to 5000 hours of instruction (Calvé, 1991). Theoretically, these two programs provide two alternate routes for the attainment of English-French bilingualism through the

ISSN: 1929-1833

© 2012 Neuroeducation – December 2012 | Volume 1 | Number 1

86

Netten and Germain

A new paradigm for the learning of a second or foreign language

school system for anglophones. However, the programs are not comparable options, either in their results or in student participation. With respect to results, it is widely known that students participating in the core French program do not attain fluency in French by the end of secondary school (Harley, Hart, Lapkin, & Scane, 1991; Hart & Scane, 2004; Netten & Germain, 2007). In contrast, students in the various options of the immersion program do (Rebuffot, 1993). Students participating in the immersion options, and their parents, are generally satisfied with the program; those participating in core French are not as much (Atlantic Provinces Education Foundation, 2004). The lack of satisfaction on the part of the core French students is reflected in high program dropout rates, low enrolments in the optional years, and a general feeling among anglophones that they “can’t learn French”. While immersion is the most effective program, participation is limited for a variety of reasons. In 2010-2011, of the number of students enrolled in French second language classes, 84 percent were in core French; only 16 percent were in immersion program options (Canadian Parents for French, 2012). This imbalance between results and participation creates a situation in which most anglophones in Canada do not have the opportunity to become bilingual. This unfortunate situation gives rise to a research problem: is it possible for core French students to develop communication skills in French in a classroom situation? It is well-known that individuals can develop communication skills outside of a school situation, but developing communication skills in a second language seems to elude those learning the language in an institutional setting. For a number of years, various attempts have been made to improve the results of classroom instruction (LeBlanc, 1990), without success. A positive answer to the problem of attaining communication skills in the classroom, and indications as to the conditions necessary for their successful development, have now been provided by the recent research in cognitive neuroscience, and in particular in neurolinguistics. This research also provides reasons for the lack of success of current second language programs modeled on the tenets of cognitive psychology.

3. Paradigm based on cognitive psychology The introduction of modern languages into the school curriculum followed on the tradition of the teaching of the classical languages, Latin and Greek. The

ISSN: 1929-1833

© 2012 Neuroeducation – December 2012 | Volume 1 | Number 1

87

Netten and Germain

A new paradigm for the learning of a second or foreign language

grammar-translation method was the standard model for second-language teaching; students learned vocabulary, verb conjugations and grammar rules, and applied this knowledge to the translation of passages from the target language to their first language, and vice versa. This traditional approach works well to develop explicit knowledge about a second language and how it works. However, with the advent of an emphasis on communication, particularly oral communication in a modern language, and the adoption of what has been called “the communicative approach”, goals of secondlanguage teaching expanded beyond explicit knowledge of the morphosyntactic forms of the language to its use in communicative situations. With this change, the traditional paradigm of second-language learning became obsolete as a theoretical basis for classroom practices. Various attempts were made to adjust the traditional paradigm to suit the new reality of second-language learning. Cognitive psychology, which studies the mental processes necessary in acquiring and using knowledge, appeared to provide the best explanation of how second-language learning could take place in the school system. Although researchers had accepted that the ability to speak in a second language required the development of an implicit competence in the language (a non-conscious, or automatic, use of language forms), it was still widely assumed that explicit knowledge of the second language (vocabulary, verb forms, grammar rules) was necessary before one could communicate spontaneously. As a result, developing communication skills in a second language was conceptualized as a process similar to that of learning other school subjects. The most widely accepted view of the process of second language learning was that of Anderson (1990) and DeKeyser (1998), which proposed that the learning took place in three steps: first, acquisition of knowledge about the language (vocabulary, rules, conjugations); second, solidification of this knowledge through exercises; and third, transfer of this knowledge to use in communicative activities. According to this paradigm, explicit knowledge about the language, through use in exercises, becomes so well-established in the mind that it can eventually be used automatically, or non-consciously, to communicate spontaneously: that is, knowledge, through practice, is transformed into an ability, or a habit. For cognitive psychology, the second-language learning equation is: explicit knowledge + practice = implicit competence. Resources for the teaching of second languages have been produced according to this paradigm for the last twenty years. Commercially published texts contain vocabulary lists, verb conjugations, grammar rules, exercises to practice this knowledge, and various activities to engage in to use it

ISSN: 1929-1833

© 2012 Neuroeducation – December 2012 | Volume 1 | Number 1

88

Netten and Germain

A new paradigm for the learning of a second or foreign language

automatically in spontaneous communication. However, the results of this approach to developing communication skills in a second language have been minimal. R. Ellis (1997) wrote of secondary Japanese students learning English that, after six years of studying English, much of which was taken up with the learning of grammar, “many of these students leave school with no procedural ability to communicate in English” (p. 75, note 10). Researchers at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education concluded, after testing of French language skills conducted in five provinces with core French students, that “in general, with some minor exceptions, the scores did not vary significantly at grade 8, whether the starting grade was kindergarten, grade 1, 3, 4, 6 or even grade 8” (Harley et al., 1991, cited by Lapkin, 2008). Ten years later, after the implementation of new resources developed for FSL classrooms based on the recommendations of the National Core French Study (LeBlanc, 1990), our research findings were similar to those reported by Lapkin (2008). They confirmed that the ability to speak French does not increase, despite the number of years of instruction in the core French program (Netten & Germain, 2009). Furthermore, they indicated that a level of spontaneous communication is generally not achieved by students of core French. More recently, testing undertaken with the DELF (Diplôme d’études en langue française) in several provinces indicates that students in the core French program do not achieve an independent level of language use. It would appear that the paradigm of learning how to communicate in a second language based on cognitive psychology does not produce the expected results.

4. Contributions of cognitive neuroscience to the conceptualisation of the neurolinguistic approach (NLA) The missing link in the language learning equation might be provided by a new perspective on the learning of second languages proposed by Paradis in his neurolinguistic theory of bilingualism (1994, 2004, 2009). Based on his analysis of research on bilingual patients suffering from aphasia and Alzheimer’s disease, he concluded that: (1) implicit competence, governed by the procedural memory, and explicit knowledge, retained in the declarative memory, are two distinct aspects of neuronal functioning; (2) there is no direct connection between the two. If there were a direct connection, then simply knowing the rules of a language would enable an individual to speak the language, and being able to speak the language would imply that the individual possessed knowledge of the rules of the language. And (3) explicit knowledge does not ‘transform’ into implicit competence, the ability underlying

ISSN: 1929-1833

© 2012 Neuroeducation – December 2012 | Volume 1 | Number 1

89

Netten and Germain

A new paradigm for the learning of a second or foreign language

spontaneous communication. If this were not the case, then people suffering from some types of aphasia would also suffer from Alzheimer’s, and vice versa (Paradis, 2004, 2009). These findings have enormous significance for the conception of the NLA. The contribution is not related to identifying the way in which an individual learns an L2/FL, but in the conclusion that implicit competence and explicit knowledge are two separate and distinct elements, and that BOTH are necessary for the development of communicative competence in a second language. Implicit competence is required to be able to communicate orally; explicit knowledge is necessary in order to communicate accurately using the written forms of the language. Each is an independent, but insufficient, component of the ability to use a language for purposes of communication. From a neurolinguistic perspective on learning an L2/FL, the equation becomes: implicit competence + explicit knowledge = ability to communicate. The finding that two components must be developed to attain the ability to communicate provides the key element in the construction of the NLA. A second contribution from neurolinguistics pertains to the development of implicit competence. Since both implicit competence and explicit knowledge are required for communication, the question arises as to how they can each be developed. Explicit knowledge does not present a problem as instruction has generally focussed on declarative learning; however, implicit competence does. Paradis indicates that the frequent oral use of the language is required. “What serves as input for the development of implicit competence is the frequency with which particular constructions are used, irrespective of their surface form” (2009, p. 80). Paradis further indicates that implicit competence is a non-conscious ability to use vocabulary and structures of the language in authentic communication. It is composed of pathways, or networks of neuronal connections, that are developed by using the language to express messages, or meaning. These language patterns are developed without any conscious attention on the part of the learner; they are simply the result of the frequency of use of the structures. Because of the non-conscious nature of implicit competence, it is developed when the learner concentrates on the message being transmitted, not on language forms, and is created without any conscious effort on the part of the learner. Learners are not aware of the development of implicit competence, nor of using it when they construct an utterance in the L2/FL. N. Ellis (2011), who also indicates that it is language use that is fundamental to developing the ability to communicate, further specifies that the process takes place most effectively when a small number

ISSN: 1929-1833

© 2012 Neuroeducation – December 2012 | Volume 1 | Number 1

90

Netten and Germain

A new paradigm for the learning of a second or foreign language

of structures are used and re-used: “language form, language meaning, and language use come together to promote robust induction by means of statistical learning over limited samples [emphasis added]” (p. 1). The only way to develop implicit competence is to use and re-use structures over and over again until the connections between the morphosyntactic phenomena are well-established in the procedural memory. Furthermore, this language use, in the beginning stages, tends to occur effectively when a small number of structures are used and re-used by the learners in many different situations in order for the neuronal pathways to be established. These findings from neurolinguistics, as to how implicit competence is created, are also of major significance in the conception of the NLA. They indicate that implicit competence is a skill, not knowledge, and that there are defined conditions necessary to encourage the development of the skill. A third contribution from cognitive neuroscience to the conception of the NLA is the importance of oral language. According to the recent research in neuroeducation, the acquisition of oral language precedes the learning of explicit knowledge about the language. “Learning a foreign (second) language must focus on oral development, especially as oral language is associated with mimicry and gestures, and because of the importance of the role of prosody” (Huc & Vincent Smith, 2008, p. 31, own translation). The significance of this finding is that language instruction can begin immediately with using the language orally in authentic communication; to begin with learning knowledge about the language is an unnecessary detour. This perspective on language learning is significant in that it complements the notion of implicit competence as a skill, requiring the use of oral language for its development, and reinforces the concept of beginning with oral development. Finally, a fourth contribution from cognitive neuroscience to the conception of the NLA is the principle of transfer appropriate processing (TAP). Research in cognitive neuroscience has indicated that the brain records data with its context. It is easier to retrieve data in the brain if the context in which it is used is similar to that in which it is learned (Segalowitz, 2010). The significance of this finding for the NLA is that, similar to the point of view of N. Ellis, language should be learned in context, and furthermore, that the contexts of learning should be similar to the contexts where the learned material will be used. This statement holds true both for oral and for written use of the language. An example of a learning practice that demonstrates an inappropriate learning strategy is the memorization of verb conjugations. In real conversation, only one appropriate form of the verb, followed by an

ISSN: 1929-1833

© 2012 Neuroeducation – December 2012 | Volume 1 | Number 1

91

Netten and Germain

A new paradigm for the learning of a second or foreign language

adverb, object or appropriate completion of the utterance, is used. Memorizing a series of verb forms as a block makes it more difficult to locate the appropriate form for a particular sentence. While this principle does not affect directly the learning of communication skills, it does have considerable impact on the effectiveness of the types of learning situations and teaching strategies used in the classroom.

5. The neurolinguistic approach (NLA) to second-language learning The NLA to second-language learning provides a new paradigm for the effective acquisition of communication skills in a second language in a classroom setting. The defining characteristic of the approach is the need to develop independently in the classroom the two components of effective communication: implicit competence, or the ability to use spontaneously an L2/FL, and explicit knowledge, a conscious awareness of how the language works, grammar rules, and vocabulary. In order to help teachers conceptualize these two components, we have used the terms internal and external grammar. Explicit knowledge is conscious knowledge that an individual possesses of the vocabulary, grammar rules, and other aspects of language that can be found in a text, discussed and evaluated by exercises or tests and explained by a teacher. Such knowledge can be accessed consciously for use when writing in the second language, and for certain aspects of auto-correction. For pedagogical purposes, in order to explain our approach to teachers, we have called this component external grammar. The core French program enables students to obtain this knowledge, and the concept is very familiar to teachers. Implicit competence is the non-conscious ability to use vocabulary and structures of the language in authentic communication composed of pathways, or networks of neuronal connections. As previously indicated, these patterns are created without any conscious attention on the part of the learner; the learner is not aware that he is developing, or using, these networks. The non-conscious nature of implicit competence means that its existence and development are not obvious to the teacher or the learner. In order to assist teachers to understand the non-conscious, yet essential, nature of implicit competence, we have called it an internal grammar, even though it does not possess any connection with grammar rules learned explicitly. Participation in a core French program does not permit the

ISSN: 1929-1833

© 2012 Neuroeducation – December 2012 | Volume 1 | Number 1

92

Netten and Germain

A new paradigm for the learning of a second or foreign language

development in each student of the internal grammar necessary for spontaneous communication. In order to determine how to improve the core French program in the light of the findings from neurolinguistic research, we condensed the major findings identified in the research into five basic principles that should underlie the pedagogy in a classroom where the acquisition of communication skills in an L2/FL is the goal of the instruction. We then re-conceptualized each of these principles in terms of their pedagogical consequences. These principles, presented here first as findings from research and then restated in pedagogical terms, are: §

creation of implicit competence - acquisition of an internal grammar;

§

primacy of oral development - use of a literacy-based pedagogy;

§

focus on meaning rather than form - use of a project-based pedagogy;

§

authenticity of language and communication situations - creation of authentic communicative situations in the classroom;

§

interaction between students in the classroom - use of interactive teaching strategies.

Our first step was to examine the core French program to identify the extent to which these principles were respected in the resources and teaching strategies used. Our findings indicated that there was neither time nor sufficient individual student participation to develop internal grammar; the curriculum was overburdened with vocabulary and structures, and considerable reuse of language learned was not feasible. Oral development was often neglected; learning an L2/FL was generally conceived of as learning knowledge about the language rather than developing skill in using it. The ability to read and write in French was generally assumed, not taught. The focus was primarily on learning correct forms rather than on the meaning of the utterances. When project activities were used, the emphasis was on the production of an object rather than on use of the L2/FL. In most activities, authenticity of language use was not a consideration; accuracy of language was. Utterances were often contrived to contain targeted grammatical structures. Interaction between students was virtually absent from the classroom. These findings indicated to us that new curriculum resources and

ISSN: 1929-1833

© 2012 Neuroeducation – December 2012 | Volume 1 | Number 1

93

Netten and Germain

A new paradigm for the learning of a second or foreign language

teaching strategies had to be invented to operationalize in the classroom the findings of the neurosciences for effective learning of communication skills. We then conceived specific changes to curriculum resources and new teaching strategies, in order to create in a classroom the conditions necessary for students to develop spontaneous communication in an L2/FL. Each principle, stated as a pedagogical imperative, is described below, giving its source in neurolinguistics/cognitive neuroscience, followed by the instructional prescriptions that ensue. 5.1 Principle 1: Acquisition of an internal grammar According to neurolinguistic research, the acquisition of an internal grammar requires the use and re-use of a limited number of structures in authentic communication with sufficient frequency that the brain is able to detect underlying regularities and develop neuronal connections, or pathways, which are recorded by the students’ procedural memory and thus permit the student to engage in spontaneous communication (Paradis, 2004; N. Ellis, 2011). Two types of pedagogical consequences follow in order to create a classroom situation that provides learners with the opportunity to create an internal grammar: one curriculum-oriented and the other related to teaching strategies. With respect to the curriculum design, less vocabulary, fewer structures and more interactive activities are required than are currently provided in resources for L2/FL learners. In the NLA, in order to provide the opportunities to use and re-use a limited number of structures in authentic conversational situations, each unit presents three or four communication functions related to each other and to the unit topic. Each function is presented only orally first and used separately in several different situations to create short, personal conversations between the students. By the end of the unit, the functions are combined to create a somewhat more complex discussion on the topic. This realignment of the curriculum to permit skill development is a complete change from current resources that focus on the development of knowledge about the L2/FL. With respect to teaching strategies, in order for the students to use and reuse each of the structures in meaningful situations, as close as possible to authentic communication, seven steps for the teaching of oral communication have been prescribed (Netten & Germain, 2007, 2012). These steps include: 1.

ISSN: 1929-1833

modeling by the teacher of authentic sentences that contain a message to be communicated: to give a model for a reply;

© 2012 Neuroeducation – December 2012 | Volume 1 | Number 1

94

Netten and Germain

A new paradigm for the learning of a second or foreign language

2.

questioning of several students by the teacher in order to elicit answers that are adapted and personal from the students: for students to learn how to construct a reply;

3.

questioning of several more students by other students, based on the model given orally by the teacher with answers appropriately personalized by the students: to learn how to ask questions;

4.

simultaneous questioning of all students of each other in pairs, for a very brief time limit, using the language structures already modeled: to use new structures to communicate a personal message / interact;

5.

questioning by the teacher of individual students about the personalized responses given by their partner in the preceding interaction: to re-use the new structures in a different situation, with limited changes to the structures;

6.

repeating the interaction in step 4, with a different partner: to reuse the structures again, in another different situation requiring minimal changes to communicate;

7.

repeating step 5, with questions pertaining to the answers of the new partner: to re-use the structures again with minimal changes in order to create pathways (procedural memory) that underlie the skill of speaking.

The steps reflect the finding that the ability to speak a language depends on the development of implicit competence, or a skill, through frequent use of a limited number of structures in authentic communication, rather than simply knowledge of what the structure is, as is currently the case in core French classrooms. Throughout these steps, the teacher may interrupt the sequence to ask any student about the answer given by a classmate, thus enabling the teacher to fashion the interactions to imitate more accurately a natural conversation. The conception of an internal grammar developed from the findings of neurolinguistic research gives rise to another teaching strategy: the use of complete sentences when introducing new structures. Internal grammar consists of morphosyntactic connections which are horizontal in nature; it cannot be developed by using partial sentences and single word answers. In order to develop their internal grammar, the teacher ensures that the students

ISSN: 1929-1833

© 2012 Neuroeducation – December 2012 | Volume 1 | Number 1

95

Netten and Germain

A new paradigm for the learning of a second or foreign language

always construct a complete sentence. The teacher also regularly corrects errors (phonetic, morphological, syntactic, lexical and discursive) in order to ensure that the grammar being internalized is accurate. In the NLA, the correction of errors is crucial, since it is this procedure that replaces, to a certain extent, the teaching of explicit grammar, which does not enter into the teaching situation until the introduction of writing (Netten & Germain, 2005). With the use of a curriculum designed in this fashion, and the teaching strategies, oral language is learned in the context of a conversation and error correction is integrated into the learning process for effective transfer to other situations. Research in cognitive neuroscience has demonstrated the importance of transfer appropriate learning (TAP) in enabling students to use skills in similar situations (Segalowitz, 2010); once students learn to use structures in a conversation they are more able to use them in similar contexts. The importance of integrating error correction into the structures used in second-language acquisition has also been confirmed by research (Lyster and Ranta, 1997). Neurolinguistic research indicates that developing the ability to communicate orally in a second language is essentially a process of creating language habits. This process, as with the development of any skill, requires frequent utilisation of the skill to be developed (i.e. the L2/FL) in a short time frame. In an institutional setting, this need translates into time in the school day. Therefore, it is necessary to have recourse to a period of intensive instruction at the beginning of the learning experience. In general, students in regular L2/FL classrooms are not exposed to the L2/FL for long enough periods of time each day, or cumulatively during a school year, to create the internal grammar necessary for spontaneous communication. Without a certain intensity of exposure to use of the language, the neuronal pathways cannot be fully established. Spontaneous communication, or the development of an internal grammar, can only be achieved by relatively intense use of the second language. Language programs, such as core French, which proceed by a drip-feed approach (30-50 minutes a day), simply do not provide the continuous use of a second language needed to develop the language habits that form internal grammar. Our research has shown that, for learners aged 10 – 11, at least 270 hours of intensive instruction is required to create some spontaneity (Germain, Netten & Movassat, 2004). Since effective use of the NLA requires more time than the regular L2/FL program, a semester of intensive instruction is an essential component of the program in the first year. This aspect of the NLA is based on the concept of the importance of

ISSN: 1929-1833

© 2012 Neuroeducation – December 2012 | Volume 1 | Number 1

96

Netten and Germain

A new paradigm for the learning of a second or foreign language

intensity of instruction in speeding up the learning process (Lightbown & Spada, 1994). The perceived attainment of spontaneous communication by the learners also creates more positive motivation for language learning, therefore adding to the effectiveness of the learning conditions. In the core French program, students expect to learn to communicate in French. In actual fact, they do not. Their lack of ability to communicate is often cited as their reason for dropping from the program (Netten, Riggs, & Hewlett, 1999). In the NLA, students do learn to communicate spontaneously; their success increases substantially their self-esteem. In qualitative research undertaken with teachers and parents, all mentioned the positive change in self-esteem that resulted from participation in the NLA (Germain & Netten, 2004). It may be hypothesized that the ability to communicate, and the accompanying pride in being able to do so, increased the motivation of the students to continue their L2/FL learning experience. The atmosphere in a NLA classroom is dramatically different from that in a core French classroom. 5.2 Principle 2: Use of a literacy-based pedagogy Research in neuroeducation indicates that the learning of an L2/FL must prioritize oral development, especially since this aspect is associated with gestures and mimicry, and also because of the major role of prosodic features in language (Huc & Vincent Smith, 2008, p. 31). Furthermore, oral language use is required to develop internal grammar. In order to increase the emphasis on oral development, and to increase authentic use of the L2/FL, the NLA adopts a literacy perspective on language learning. A literacy perspective on language, and particularly on the learning of language, emphasizes both its oral foundations and nature as a skill. Literacy is generally defined as being able to use language (Government of Ontario, 2004). It is this perspective on language that complements the neurolinguistic research rather than the traditional view of second language learning that focuses on the acquiring of knowledge about the language. A literacy perspective enables teachers to view language learning as developing habits rather than knowledge, to place a priority on oral language development and confirms the sequence of oral development before reading and writing. The adoption of a literacy perspective on second language learning gives rise to pedagogical consequences for both the curriculum and teaching strategies. With respect to curriculum design, in the NLA, each unit is constructed to begin with an oral phase. Students develop first of all the ability to talk about a

ISSN: 1929-1833

© 2012 Neuroeducation – December 2012 | Volume 1 | Number 1

97

Netten and Germain

A new paradigm for the learning of a second or foreign language

certain theme. Reading and writing activities follow in sequence, generally in the same day as the oral introduction; students learn to read about a topic using primarily the same vocabulary words and structures as those already developed orally in order to maintain the use and re-use of a limited number of language structures (N. Ellis, 2011). Reading precedes writing because it is primarily a recognition activity; in reading, students are introduced to and learn to recognize the graphic forms of the sounds of the target language and they also observe features of the language specific to the written form. Writing follows reading because, in writing, observed knowledge is used in the production of the language forms. Explicit teaching of language forms is initiated with reading activities and continues with writing. Thus, learners can build from implicit competence to explicit knowledge about the language, as recommended by neurolinguistic research (Paradis, 2004, 2009). Learners also continue the use and re-use of a limited number of vocabulary words and structures essential to developing an internal grammar (N. Ellis, 2011). Since cognitive neuroscience has shown that highly contextualized learning (TAP) translates into more effective learning (Segalowitz, 2010), the learning of explicit aspects of language (i.e. external grammar) has also been contextualized in the NLA. Not only is external grammar introduced after oral use, but also in a context. Language forms are first identified in the texts used for reading, and then are integrated into the learner’s personal compositions. With respect to teaching strategies, reading and writing are taught directly in the L2/FL, without any explicit reference to translation. The strategies used are similar to those used in the mother tongue classroom for literacy development, but with modifications required for the learning of a second language. Modifications pertain particularly to a greater emphasis on oral development before reading and writing, as well as a more intense oral preparation at the beginning of reading and writing activities. These changes devolve from the neurolinguistic concept of internal grammar. In an L2/FL classroom, students possess an internal grammar that is considerably more limited than that of students learning to read and write in their mother tongue. Extending internal grammar development through oral use of new or different structures in the L2/FL before reading and writing activities enables students to integrate these structures into their print-oriented activities without resorting to translation (Germain & Netten, 2005a; 2012). For reading there are three phases: an oral pre-reading phase; the reading phase that has two or three exploitations of the text: one for the message, incorporating teacher modeling of the text and another (at the beginning) to

ISSN: 1929-1833

© 2012 Neuroeducation – December 2012 | Volume 1 | Number 1

98

Netten and Germain

A new paradigm for the learning of a second or foreign language

understand the new sound symbol relationships; and the third to observe, and formulate, grammatical relationships. Attention is focused on meaning and form at separate moments, as recommended by Lyster (2007), but in the NLA approach, meaning always precedes form-focussed instruction (Krashen, 1981; N. Ellis, 2011). A post-reading phase integrates the new knowledge with that already learned. Writing also follows the three phases, for similar reasons. Once new vocabulary and structures have been appropriated in this sequence, they are then re-used in reading and oral activities to integrate them into the language that has been previously acquired. In this way, language learning from a literacy perspective begins and ends with oral use. Error correction remains important in the teaching of reading and writing. For reading, the teacher models fluent reading of a text, that is, linking together words in groups that have meaning. Students are encouraged to read in a similar fashion, as fluent reading aids comprehension. This process occurs more easily when learners have already developed an internal grammar. For accuracy, it is important that learners recognize the sounds of the L2/FL in their written form and produce or read them correctly. If incorrect connections are made, a correct model is given, and students re-read the complete sentence in which the correction occurs, to ensure that the correction is placed in context. Both strategies, fluent modeling and contextualization of error correction, derive from neurolinguistic research cited previously. For writing, errors are placed into two categories reflecting the neurolinguistic bases of the approach which indicate that both knowledge and skill are required to develop the ability to communicate in an L2/FL: those that are the result of an incorrect internal grammar, or implicit competence, and those that are due to inaccurate knowledge of the written form of the L2/FL. Errors that are due to incorrect knowledge can be corrected by explanation and written use of the correct forms, and the new information stored, and accessed consciously, through use of the declarative memory. Errors that are due to an incorrect internal grammar, however, can only be corrected by repeated oral use of the structure in authentic conversation, as these errors are related to incorrect connections created by the procedural memory. It is only when an accurate internal grammar has been constructed that a learner will be able to write correctly, and spontaneously in the L2/FL. Thus, neurolinguistic research has enabled us to re-conceptualize the question of error and create a more effective pedagogical response to correction.

ISSN: 1929-1833

© 2012 Neuroeducation – December 2012 | Volume 1 | Number 1

99

Netten and Germain

A new paradigm for the learning of a second or foreign language

5.3 Principle 3: Use of a project-based pedagogy Neurolinguistic research has shown that in order to acquire an internal grammar, attention must be focussed on a message rather than on the language, since internal grammar can only be acquired non-consciously, that is, without conscious attention to language forms (Paradis, 1994, 2004). N. Ellis (2011) also stresses the importance of the link between meaning and language forms used in the development of the ability to communicate. The pedagogical consequence of this principle is primarily related to curriculum design. The learning of the second language must be based upon the use of interesting cognitive tasks that present an intellectual challenge to the students (Germain & Netten, 2011). In the NLA, use is made of a projectbased pedagogy. To facilitate the creation of meaningful situations and interesting, cognitively-demanding tasks for the students, curriculum units are organized in a sequence of two to four mini-projects, each focusing on the use of the communication function previously learned orally, which culminate at the end of the unit in a related final project. This pattern encourages the reuse of the language structures in each unit, as the final project requires the integration of language structures used in each of the previous mini-projects. The use of a project-based pedagogy allows students to concentrate on the theme being developed, and the expression of their personal views on the topic, rather than on language forms. Activities are not isolated, and require the continuous involvement of the student, thus implicating other areas of the brain necessary for effective language learning (Paradis, 2004; N. Ellis, 2011). Since the tasks are cognitively demanding, they contribute to the development of cognitive skills that can later be transferred to their first language (Cummins, 2001). The use of a project-based pedagogy also enables teachers to increase gradually in the course of a unit the difficulty of the tasks and the complexity of the language structures. 5.4 Principle 4: Use of authentic communicative situations Neurolinguistic research has indicated that the use of authentic language in real communication is essential in order to acquire the internal grammar necessary for spontaneous communication. Both Paradis (2004) and N. Ellis (2011) mention the importance of using authentic language in real communicative exchanges for learning of the language structures to occur. In addition, cognitive neuroscience has shown the complexity of the involvement of different centers in the brain, such as those related to

ISSN: 1929-1833

© 2012 Neuroeducation – December 2012 | Volume 1 | Number 1

100

Netten and Germain

A new paradigm for the learning of a second or foreign language

motivation, when authentic communication takes place. For effective language acquisition, implication of these centers is required (Paradis, 2004). This is why internal grammar cannot be acquired by controlled practice or memorized dialogues; material that is learned in such a way is primarily focussed on language forms and represents declarative knowledge; it does not contribute substantially to the creation of procedural memory. Furthermore, each dialogue or exercise tends to be limited in its scope and integration into a sustained discussion of any topic: “Controlled practice exercises [...] do not afford students opportunities for [...] the sustained output [...] necessary for interlanguage development” (R. Ellis, 2002). Another aspect of the use of dialogues and practice exercises is that they are not sufficiently contextualized to be available for use in actual communication, as indicated by research on TAP (Segalowitz, 2010). Students need to be involved in authentic communication in the classroom in order to develop the ability to participate in authentic communication in the real world. The pedagogical consequences of this principle are two-fold. With respect to curriculum design, units are created based on communication situations that are as authentic as possible on subjects that are of interest to the students. Language functions are chosen based on what the students would most likely wish to say. If students wish to say something that is not in the text, teachers have the liberty to construct a different utterance, provided that it fulfills the communicative function of the exchange. All activities focus on enabling the students to express their own personal reactions. At no point in the units are the students required to produce language that does not reflect their own personal message. Teachers do not ask students questions that are not realistic, and student replies are always personalized. With respect to teaching strategies, students do not repeat sentences that are untrue for themselves, simply to practise a language structure. For example, a student would not be asked to say that he is wearing a red shirt, if in fact he is wearing a blue sweater. Students are rarely asked to repeat an utterance in chorus, but if this strategy is used, the utterance must be changed to be authentic; therefore, students could repeat together, “Alice is wearing a green dress”, but never, “I am wearing a green dress”. This emphasis on authenticity of conversations is also reflected in the way that teachers are asked to reply to student utterances. In core French classrooms where language is learned primarily as explicit knowledge, the standard reply to a student utterance focuses on the accuracy of the language. Expressions such as “Bravo, correct, right” are regularly used. In

ISSN: 1929-1833

© 2012 Neuroeducation – December 2012 | Volume 1 | Number 1

101

Netten and Germain

A new paradigm for the learning of a second or foreign language

the NLA classroom replies to a student utterance focus on the meaning of the utterance, and extend the conversation: comments such as, “Yes, I do, too; Just like Martha”; or “Do you agree, Billy?”, are made. It is to be noted that, as explained under the first principle, if an error should occur, the error is immediately corrected, but correction is achieved through a modeling and rephrasing of the interchange; the emphasis is still on the authenticity of the message. Communication is always in the L2/FL. Should a new expression be required, it is modeled by the teacher and used immediately by the student. 5.5 Principle 5: Use of interactive teaching strategies Neurolinguistic research indicates that it is through frequent use of language structures that the neuronal pathways necessary for spontaneous oral communication are created in the procedural memory (Paradis, 2004). It also suggests that this use of language must not be simple repetition of learned sequences, but authentic language used for purposes of communication (N. Ellis, 2011). Since internal grammar is a skill, not knowledge, and its creation depends upon use, students must engage in interactive exchanges in the classroom. However, in regular L2/FL classrooms, it is the teacher who does most of the talking; in the average L2/FL classroom, up to 85% of the talk is teacher-talk (Germain, Hardy, & Pambianchi, 1991). Therefore, in order to encourage language use by the learners, a less formal classroom atmosphere must be created; interaction between the students and the teacher, and between the students themselves, must be fostered. Interaction is also important as it creates contextualization of the structures being learned in authentic conversational use of the language in the school situation. In effect, it creates a form of TAP (Segalowitz, 2010). Students learn to adjust to the deficiencies of real communication, such as a sentence only partially heard, a new word or word used unexpectedly, and asking for clarification, expressing disagreement, and so forth. As a result, students are more capable of transferring their communication skills to use of the second language in the real world. However, the role of interaction has even greater significance. Interaction between the students contributes not only to the development of an individual internal grammar, but also to the overall social and cognitive development of the learner (Vygotsky, 1962). As students discuss the various themes contained in the units they not only negotiate meaning on a linguistic plane,

ISSN: 1929-1833

© 2012 Neuroeducation – December 2012 | Volume 1 | Number 1

102

Netten and Germain

A new paradigm for the learning of a second or foreign language

contributing to the development of their language skills, they also engage in a sharing of ideas and understandings, which, it has been hypothesized, refines cognitive development. According to Perret-Clermont (1986), when engaged in social interaction, the individual learner rejects or modifies his previous conceptions, and as a result, develops new understandings and intellectual skills. Therefore, in order to ensure that each individual student develops his own internal grammar, it is essential that students participate regularly in social interactions in which they use the second language. This participation also appears to have a causal effect on cognitive development and the restructuring of thought patterns (Doise & Mugny, 1981; Vygotsky, 1962). It is this aspect of the neurolinguistic approach that enables it to make a much stronger contribution to the overall education of the child than the regular second language program (Germain & Netten, 2005b). The pedagogical consequences of this principle primarily affect curriculum design. Opportunities for group activities, pair work and other forms of interaction are built into the units to ensure that interaction among students is a regular part of the classroom activities. In order for the interactive activities to produce valid language use, all structures must be modelled and used beforehand in short exchanges to encourage relatively accurate independent use. To ensure that students are adequately prepared linguistically for all interactive activities, their preparation forms an integral part of each unit. In addition, in the creation of project activities, attention is given to the task in order to ensure linguistic content and to encourage motivational implication on the part of the student, as well as an adequate cognitive involvement. This view gives a different perspective on learning, showing not only the importance of skill development and procedural memory on an individual basis, but also of the importance of social interaction in learning. It would seem important that, in adapting the concepts of cognitive neuroscience to the field of neuroeducation, the role of social interaction in developing cognition should not be overlooked. 6. Applications of the NLA in real classrooms There are at the present time (2012) two classroom applications of NLA: the Intensive French program in Canada and a university-level French program in China, for young adults, aged 19, in one university (Gal-Bailly, 2011; Ricordel, 2012). The Intensive French program in Canada, which begins in grade 5 or 6 with students aged 11 or 12 and continues to the end of high school, began in

ISSN: 1929-1833

© 2012 Neuroeducation – December 2012 | Volume 1 | Number 1

103

Netten and Germain

A new paradigm for the learning of a second or foreign language

Newfoundland and Labrador in 1998. Since that time, it has expanded to all provinces except Quebec, where there is Intensive English (a similar, but not identical program as it is not based on the NLA). Over 45,700 students have participated in Intensive French at grade 5 or 6 since the inception of the program. Results of the Intensive French program in Canada indicate that the NLA to the teaching of French as a second language is far more effective than the regular core French program. After one semester of instruction, approximately 300 hours, 70% of students in the program are able to communicate spontaneously in French on topics related to their age and curriculum. Oral testing of students from five different provinces, who participated in the Intensive French program, indicate that the average level of performance reached after five months of intensive instruction was at, or close to, 14, on the New Brunswick Oral Proficiency Interview Scale (OPI), a level that represents the beginning of spontaneous communication (Netten & Germain, 2009). As students continue their instruction in the Intensive French program through to the end of secondary school, they are able to attain the ability to communicate spontaneously on a wide variety of subjects, a score of 17 or Intermediate Level on the New Brunswick OPI. Their communicative abilities, while not equal to those of students who have participated in immersion programs, are far superior to those of students who have participated in the core French program, based on categories of the DELF (Diplôme d’études en langue française), as is shown in the graph below (Government of New Brunswick, 2010). It is interesting to note that, since 2008, the province of New Brunswick has replaced core French with the Intensive French program for all students who are not in immersion.

ISSN: 1929-1833

© 2012 Neuroeducation – December 2012 | Volume 1 | Number 1

104

Netten and Germain

A new paradigm for the learning of a second or foreign language

Table 1. Oral results for FSL students in New Brunswick in core, intensive and immersion programs at the end of secondary school (based on the DELF interview scale).   End of program Core French th 12 Grade Intensive French th 5 Grade Post-Intensive French th 8 Grade Post-Intensive French th 10 Grade Post-Intensive / Blended High School Program th 12 Grade Late Immersion th 10 Grade Early Immersion th 10 Grade

Oral Language Competency (Key Stage Outcomes) A1 A2 B1     A1.1

A1.2

A1

A2.1

A2.2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A2

B2

B1.1

B1.2

B1

B2.1

B2.2

B2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The NLA, because of its bases in neurolinguistic research, is an approach to L2/FL learning that has positive implications for all types of L2/FL learners. Recent research in the field of education has indicated that the NLA provides a successful learning experience for immigrant children, enabling them to acquire French without interference to their English development (Carr, 2009). In addition, it has been demonstrated that learners with challenges respond positively to the program, due primarily to its oral and interactive nature (Joy & Murphy, 2012). Further classroom applications of NLA are being developed in Canada by other professionals to teach certain First Nations’ languages in the Yukon, the Northwest Territories and Prince Edward Island, as well as in the James Bay area to teach English, French and Cree. It appears from these initiatives that

ISSN: 1929-1833

© 2012 Neuroeducation – December 2012 | Volume 1 | Number 1

105

Netten and Germain

A new paradigm for the learning of a second or foreign language

curriculum resources that conform to the principles of the NLA can be adapted to teach communication skills in a wide variety of second languages (Netten & Germain, 2009). While more research is necessary to confirm its applicability, it would appear that the principles upon which the NLA is founded are universal with respect to the learning of communication skills in an L2/FL. 7. Relationship between the NLA and immersion The immersion program is based on the premise that, if students learn subject matter in French, they will at the same time appropriate the L2. With respect to the five principles of the NLA, the following comments may be made. Firstly, the immersion program provides intensity of exposure to the L2 in the beginning stages, and develops internal grammar, as French is used as the language of communication for teachers and students throughout the school day. Secondly, immersion is based on a literacy approach to language teaching, as first-language instruction is always literacy based, even though the instructional practices for effective literacy development change over time. Thirdly, in immersion, the focus of the learning is primarily the content of the curriculum; language becomes a means to an end. Consequently, immersion focuses on the learning of subject matter rather than on the learning of forms of the language. Fourthly, authenticity of communication, at least for a classroom situation, is assured. Interaction is the only area that tends to be less prevalent in an immersion classroom. For a considerable period of time, research has shown that oral results are more positive in classrooms where more interaction occurs (Netten & Spain, 1989). However, it is only recently, as a result of the findings of neuroeducational research and a change in our understanding of literacy, that attempts have been made to encourage more student interaction in the immersion classroom. Teaching strategies in immersion have been primarily those of the subjects to be taught. Perhaps the major weakness of the immersion program is that the teaching/learning of the L2 has been subordinated to the learning of subject matter. Consequently, there is room for improvement in the teaching strategies for L2 learning in the immersion classroom (Mandin, 2008). The concept of internal grammar, as well as many of the teaching strategies conceived for the NLA are pertinent, and could be used effectively in immersion classrooms to improve L2 communication skills. Among these strategies may be mentioned: the use of complete sentences to assist in developing an internal grammar; the importance of oral error correction for an

ISSN: 1929-1833

© 2012 Neuroeducation – December 2012 | Volume 1 | Number 1

106

Netten and Germain

A new paradigm for the learning of a second or foreign language

accurate internal grammar; an increased emphasis on oral development, and the related adoption of a pedagogy for the teaching of literacy that is specific to an L2; and greater contextualisation of teaching language forms. In addition, a less formal classroom, with more use of project-type activities and student interaction to encourage personal, rather than academic, use of the L2, would also improve L2 development for students in immersion. Furthermore, it may be mentioned that the characteristics identified by the neurosciences as being necessary to effective development of L2 communication skills occur most easily in early immersion (Netten, 2007). Because of the nature of the primary curriculum, language structures are somewhat limited and re-used, literacy development, with an emphasis on oral language, is a major focus, and learners are actively involved in their learning and interact to a certain extent with the teacher. Immersion programs with a later start could profit from an initial period devoted to L2 instruction before subject matter is introduced as well as the adoption of the L2 teaching strategies of the NLA to make them more effective and appealing. At the present time, there has been some interest expressed in adopting some of the teaching strategies of the NLA in immersion. Where this type of change has been undertaken, positive results have generally been reported, though no research has as yet been undertaken (Cogswell, 2008). 8. Limitations of the NLA Reactions of parents, students, teachers and administrators to the NLA have been extremely positive. Not only have communication skills improved substantially, but primarily because of the ability to express themselves in French, motivation and attitudes towards the learning of French, as well as towards francophones have shown improvement (Germain & Netten, 2004). There are, however, some limitations, related particularly to the implementation of the approach in the school system. Due to the positive results achieved in Intensive French, some parents would like the program to start in the primary grades, kindergarten to grade 3 in the North American context. However, the program has been designed to begin in the elementary grades, with learners aged 10 - 11. Because of the need for some intensity in the beginning stages of the program to develop spontaneous oral communication, it is necessary to compact some elements of the regular curriculum. The nature of the primary program is such that much of the curriculum is devoted to literacy development in the first language; reducing the number of hours devoted to the first language curriculum at this stage is not recommended. The need for an intensive period of instruction at the

ISSN: 1929-1833

© 2012 Neuroeducation – December 2012 | Volume 1 | Number 1

107

Netten and Germain

A new paradigm for the learning of a second or foreign language

beginning of the program also causes a reticence on the part of some administrators to implement it. Re-arranging the timetable for the grade 5 or 6 classes has implications on the timetables for other grades, often creating conflicts that are hard to resolve. Related to this issue is the question of the effects on the other subjects in the curriculum. Reducing the number of hours of regular instruction to increase exposure to the L2/FL requires some adjustments (compacting or integration) in the regular curriculum during five months of the school year. This necessity causes concern that there will be long term negative effects on, or at least a reduction of, learning goals in the other subjects, a fear that restricts implementation in some areas. Results of standardized testing undertaken by school districts or provincial departments of Education, however, have shown that this is not the case; indeed, as is the case for the immersion program, in the long term there are positive effects on English language, and also on mathematics scores, with no lags in the other subject areas (Germain & Netten, 2010). A further limitation with regard to implementation of an NLA is the need to have teachers who are qualified to implement the program. This requires a certain fluency in the L2/FL, in order to be able to carry on an authentic conversation; often teachers with this level of fluency are not available in the regular school system. In addition, teachers must be educated to understand the theoretical bases of the approach underlying the curriculum and to use the teaching strategies effectively. This imposes a certain burden on the school system. Also, the long tradition in core French of putting the emphasis on the teaching of knowledge rather than skill requires that teachers be open to the adoption of new, and radically different, ideas about the learning of an L2/FL. Adopting the approach, and using it effectively, demands a major change in their beliefs about L2/FL learning, and some teachers may require two or three years before they are able to understand the shift in pedagogy that is implicit in the NLA. Until the general tenets of neuroeducation are more widely diffused, the majority of teachers will have some difficulty in reorienting their beliefs about learning/teaching. 9. Directions for further research The NLA opens up a whole new area of research for the teaching/ learning of an L2/FL. The concept of internal grammar, in particular, is a fruitful area for research on L2/FL acquisition. An effective way of operationalizing and measuring the level of internal grammar is required. There would appear to be a relationship between internal grammar and fluency that should be explored,

ISSN: 1929-1833

© 2012 Neuroeducation – December 2012 | Volume 1 | Number 1

108

Netten and Germain

A new paradigm for the learning of a second or foreign language

as well as between internal grammar and spontaneous communication. Cummins (1976) hypothesized that there are two threshold levels of importance in L2/FL learning: the lower threshold that should be attained before beginning L2/FL learning and the upper threshold that marked the beginning of actual cognitive use of the L2/FL. Exploring the concept of internal grammar, and defining levels, could verify and expand the usefulness of these hypotheses. Research to examine the concept of internal grammar, and its development, in relation to the rhythm of individual learners in developing literacy skills should also be useful to educators in both first and second language contexts, and could help to identify learners in difficulty. At a more general level, a major contribution of the cognitive neurosciences to research in education is the important distinction between knowledge and skill, and the different ways in which these two products of learning are treated by the brain. It will be important for educators in all subject areas to identify more effectively those aspects of the curriculum that are knowledgebased and those that are skills, and to realize that learning may more often require complex re-organization in the brain rather than the simple storage of new information. In addition, it may be of interest to researchers in the area of neuroeducation to examine their findings in the light of constructivist perspectives on instruction. ”While the processes of instruction follow their own logical order, they direct and awaken a system of processes in the child’s mind which is hidden from direct observation and subject to its own developmental laws” (Vygotsky, 1962, p. 102). What was hidden from direct observation for Vygotsky may now be observable with new imaging techniques. Furthermore, in the school situation instruction by its nature involves groups of individuals who interact in the learning situation. How social interaction shapes individual cognitive development is an important part of understanding learning and developing instructional prescriptions to create effective classroom conditions to promote that learning.

10. Conclusion Conception of the NLA demonstrates the significant contribution that research in the neurosciences has made to the field of education. Until now the primary paradigm on which the resources and strategies for learning to communicate in an L2/FL have been developed has been that based on the tenets of cognitive psychology. While the results of this paradigm were unsatisfactory,

ISSN: 1929-1833

© 2012 Neuroeducation – December 2012 | Volume 1 | Number 1

109

Netten and Germain

A new paradigm for the learning of a second or foreign language

the reasons for its deficiencies proved to be elusive. It is through the adoption of a neurolinguistic perspective on bilingualism that a more successful L2/FL paradigm has been conceptualized. The five principles of the NLA provide one example of how neurolinguistic theory can be incorporated into creating new and more effective conditions for developing communication skills. Other approaches may also be developed. Nonetheless, in its present form, the NLA has been highly successful in enabling students to communicate spontaneously in a second language in a school situation, and has demonstrated its applicability to the learning of second languages other than French.   References Anderson, J. R. (1990). Cognitive psychology and its implications. (3rd ed.). New York, NY: W.H. Freeman. Atlantic Provinces Education Foundation. (2004). Core French survey: A regional report. Halifax, Nova Scotia. Retrieved from http://www.caslt.org/pdf/ APEF%20-%20Section%20one.pdf Calvé, P. (1991). Vingt-cinq ans d'immersion au Canada : 1965-1990. Études de linguistique appliquée, 82, 7-23. Canadian Parents for French (2012). Enrolment, recruitment and retention. Retrieved from http://cpf.ca/en/media/backgrounders/enrolmentrecruitment-and-retention Carr, W. (2009). Intensive French in British Columbia: Student and parent perspectives and English as additional language (EAL). The Canadian Modern Language Review/Revue canadienne des langues vivantes, 65(5), 787-815. Cogswell, F. (2008). Dix leçons apprises en français intensif et appliquées à l’immersion tardive. Immersion Journal /Journal de l’immersion, 30(2), 17-20. Cummins, J. (2001). The entry and exit fallacy in bilingual education. In C. Baker & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), An introductory reader to the writings of Jim Cummins (pp. 110-138). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. Cummins, J. (1976). The influence of bilingualism on cognitive growth: A synthesis of research findings and explanatory hypothesis. Working Papers on Bilingualism, 9. 1-43.

ISSN: 1929-1833

© 2012 Neuroeducation – December 2012 | Volume 1 | Number 1

110

Netten and Germain

A new paradigm for the learning of a second or foreign language

DeKeyser, R. (1998). Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practicing second language grammar. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 42-63). Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. Doise, W. & Mugny, G. (1981). Le développement social de l’intelligence. Paris, France: Interéditions. Ellis, N. (January, 2011). Language acquisition just Zipf’s right along. Conference, Université du Québec à Montréal. Ellis, R. (2002). Does form-focused instruction affect the acquisition of implicit knowledge? – A review of the research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 223-236. Ellis, R. (1997). SLA research and language teaching. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press. Gal-Bailly, T. (2011). Mise en place d’une méthode contemporaine d’enseignement du français langue étrangère en milieu universitaire chinois – Étude comparative entre la méthode traditionnelle chinoise et l’approche neurolinguistique dans un cadre pré-expérimental (Unpublished professional master’s thesis). Rouen University, France. Germain, C., Hardy, M., & Pambianchi, G. (1991). Teacher/Student interaction. In R. Tremblay (Ed.), Professional development plan, French as a second language. Montréal, Canada: Centre éducatif et culturel. Germain, C. & Netten, J. (2012). Une pédagogie de la littératie spécifique à la L2. Réflexions, 31(1), 17-18. Germain, C. & Netten, J. (2011). Impact de la conception de l’acquisition d’une langue seconde ou étrangère sur la conception de la langue et de son enseignement. Synergies Chine, 6, 25-36. Germain, C. & Netten, J. (2010). Une approche transdisciplinaire de l’apprentissage du français langue seconde au Canada : le français intensif. Proceedings, Stratégie interdisciplinaire et interculturelle dans l’enseignement du français, Université Catholique Fu-Jen, Taïwan, 1224. Germain, C. & Netten, J. (2005a). Place et rôle de l’oral dans l’enseignement / apprentissage d’une L2, Babylonia, 2, 7-10. Retrieved from: http://babylonia.ch/fileadmin/user_upload/documents/2005-2/ germainnetten.pdf

ISSN: 1929-1833

© 2012 Neuroeducation – December 2012 | Volume 1 | Number 1

111

Netten and Germain

A new paradigm for the learning of a second or foreign language

Germain, C. & Netten, J. (2005b). Approche transdisciplinaire et processus cognitifs dans l’apprentissage d’une L2. Parole, 34-36, 187-198. Germain, C. & Netten, J. (2004). Étude qualitative du régime pédagogique du français intensif. Revue canadienne des langues vivantes/The Canadian Modern Language Review, 60(3), 393-408. Germain, C., Netten, J., & Movassat, P. (2004). L’évaluation de la production orale en français intensif : Critères et résultats. Revue canadienne des langues vivantes/The Canadian Modern Language Review, 60(3), 309332. Government of New Brunswick (2010). Oral language competence. Fredericton, Canada: New Brunswick Department of Education. Government of Ontario (2004). Literacy for learning: The report of the expert panel on literacy in grades 4 to 6. Toronto, Canada: Ontario Ministry of Education. Harley, B., Hart, D., Lapkin, S., & Scane, J. (1991). Baseline data for OAC performance in core French. Unpublished manuscript, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, Modern Language Centre, University of Toronto, Canada. Hart, D. & Scane, J. (2004). Chapters 5, 6 and 7. In State of FSL report. Ottawa, Canada: Canadian Parents for French. Huc, P. & Vincent Smith, B. (2008). Naissance de la neurodidactique, Le Français dans le Monde, 357, 30-31. Joy, R. & Murphy, E. (2012). The inclusion of children with special educational needs in an intensive French as a second-language program: From theory to practice. Canadian Journal of Education/Revue canadienne de l'éducation, 35(1), 102-119. Retrieved from http://ojs.vre.upei.ca/index.php/cje-rce/article/view/712 Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford, United Kingdom: Pergamon Press. Lapkin, S. (2008). Imagining core French in the 21st century. Paper presented at the Future directions for FSL Teaching in Canada round table. Official Languages and Bilingualism Institute, University of Ottawa, Canada. LeBlanc, R. (1990). National core French study: A synthesis. Ottawa, Canada: Canadian Association of Second Language Teachers.

ISSN: 1929-1833

© 2012 Neuroeducation – December 2012 | Volume 1 | Number 1

112

Netten and Germain

A new paradigm for the learning of a second or foreign language

Lightbown, P.M. & Spada, N. (1994). An innovative program for Primary ESL in Quebec. TESOL Quarterly, 28(3), 563-579. Lyster, R. (2007). Learning and teaching languages through content: A counterbalanced approach. Amsterdam, Netherlands/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. Lyster, R. & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37-66. Mandin, L. (2008). L’avenir de l’immersion française au Canada. Paper presented at the Future Directions for FSL Teaching in Canada round table. Official Languages and Bilingualism Institute, University of Ottawa, Canada. Retrieved from: http://www.caslt.org/pdf/ factsheets_research/Lucille+Mandin_CCERBAL +2008.pdf Netten, J. (2007). Optimal entry point for French immersion. Revue de l’Université de Moncton, Numéro hors-série, 27-35. Netten, J. & Germain, C. (2012). Approche neurolinguistique – Guide pédagogique, Français intensif (2nd ed.) – Introduction (English Translation). Montréal: Auto-édition. Netten, J & Germain, C. (2009). The future of intensive French in Canada. The Canadian Modern Language Review/Revue canadienne des langues vivantes, 65(5), 757-786. Netten, J. & Germain, C. (2007). Learning to communicate effectively through Intensive instruction in French. In M. Dooly & D. Eastment (Eds.), How we’re going about it: Teachers voices on innovative approaches to teaching and learning languages (pp. 31-41). Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Netten, J. & Germain, C. (2005). Pedagogy and second language learning: Lessons learned from intensive French. Revue canadienne de linguistique appliquée/Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8(2), 183-210. Netten, J., Riggs, C., & Hewlett, S. (1999). Choosing core French in Newfoundland and Labrador. Research report. St. John’s, Canada: Memorial University of Newfoundland. Netten, J. & Spain, W. (1989). Student-teacher interaction patterns in the French immersion classroom: Implications for levels of achievement in French language proficiency. The Canadian Modern Language Review/Revue canadienne des langues vivantes, 45(3), 485-501.

ISSN: 1929-1833

© 2012 Neuroeducation – December 2012 | Volume 1 | Number 1

113

Netten and Germain

A new paradigm for the learning of a second or foreign language

Paradis, M. (2009). Declarative and procedural determinants of second languages. Amsterdam, Netherlands/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. Paradis, M. (2004). A neurolinguistic theory of bilingualism. Amsterdam, Netherlands/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. Paradis, M. (1994). Neurolinguistic aspects of implicit and explicit memory: Implications for bilingualism. In N. Ellis (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of second languages (pp. 393-419). London, England: Academic Press. Perret-Clermont, A.-N. (1986). La construction de l’intelligence dans l’interaction sociale (3e éd.). Berne, Suisse: Peter Lang. Rebuffot, J. (1993). Le point sur l’immersion au Canada. Montréal, Canada: Centre éducatif et culturel. Ricordel, I. (2012). Application de l’Approche neurolinguistique en milieu exolingue. Le français à l'université, 17(1). Retrieved from http://www.bulletin.auf.org/ index.php?id=1041. Segalowitz, N. (2010). Cognitive bases of second language fluency. New York, NY/Oxon, United Kingdom : Routledge/Abingdon. Sénéchal, G. (2004). Impact du nombre d’heures d’enseignement sur l’apprentissage du français langue seconde à la fin du primaire (4e, 5e et 6e années). Unpublished master’s thesis, Montreal : Université du Québec à Montréal. Vygotsky, L.S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

ISSN: 1929-1833

© 2012 Neuroeducation – December 2012 | Volume 1 | Number 1

114