Unit 3

NEUROLINGUISTIC RESEARCH
AND FOREIGN LANGUAGE TEACHING









1. Introduction
2. Practical Assignment 3
3. Readings
1
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 its 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 Kane
1
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-neuroeducation-
translates-brain-research-into-practical-teaching.
2
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 educators 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 childs 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
educators 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
3
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:

[1] 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.


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 Jos Mara Gil and Adolfo Martn Garca). 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!
4
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 Scovels arguments
invalidate Lamendellas reasoning, or does Lamdendellas paper show the inaccuracy of
Scovels 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 patients 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 patients 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 patients 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
5
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)














6
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 patients 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 patients 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 patients 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






QUESTIONS TO NEUROSCIENTISTS
FROM EDUCATORS

1

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?
2

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
3

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.
4

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
5

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






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 support@jstor.org.
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
TESOL QUARTERLY
Vol.
16,
No. 3
September 1982
Questions Concerning
the
Application of
Neurolinguistic
Research to Second
Language
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
surveyed
a field in the throes of almost frenetic
experimental activity.
Development
has been so
rapid
that there has been little time for
stock-taking.
There are so
many things
to
do,
so
many
facts to
gather,
so
many experiments
to be confirmed or which
require
additional controls
that,
for the
moment,
it
it seems wiser to be
wary
of
far-reaching
conclusions. Much more has been
discovered of what has to be learned than has
emerged
as
firmly
established
knowledge. Although 'listening
in' on the
activity
of
single
nerve cells has
provided
some
fascinating glimpses
into neural
interaction,
the mechanism of
that interaction still
strangely
evades detection.
(Morrell 1961:483)
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 lan-
guage learning
and
teaching, by citing
some recent studies which en-
courage
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 di-
rect
applications
of the then
comparatively
new science of
linguistics
to
second
language
instruction
(Bolinger
1972,
Krohn
1971).
It is not neces-
sary
to
employ
either
linguistic
models or
neurolinguistic
research to
justify
323
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 double-
minded 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
describ-
ing
Tsunoda's work on "the
Japanese
brain" which claims that "the lan-
guage
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 informa-
tion
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
try-
ing
to match
biological
correlates to
psychological
functions,
a hazard
pointed
out
by
Gruber and
Segalowitz (1977),
I think both
language
re-
searchers 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 class-
room. 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
324
Applications
to
Teaching
teachers and administrators alike will
ignore
little
qualifications
like
may,
might,
or in some
subjects,
and rush
headlong
into direct classroom
appli-
cations
purportedly tapping
LH or RH abilities.1
There are four reasons
why
I believe that brain research will not
pro-
vide a
quick
fix to our
teaching problems.
I
present
them here as
four
questions
about the
applicability
of
neurolinguistic
research to second lan-
guage 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 dis-
cover that
neurolinguists
have
usually
examined either
competent
bilin-
guals 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 sec-
ond
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 de-
signed
for
beginning
or intermediate level learners. The mismatch is im-
mediately 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
psycholog-
ical
stages
of
cognition,
and there is no reason to assume that the nu-
merous
neuropsychological
studies we have on
bilingualism
can be auto-
matically
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.
325
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 sub-
jects 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 be-
havioral 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 pa-
tients,
or
they
did worse.
Dekosky
et al.
(1980) speculate
that since link-
ing
emotion to faces
may require
verbal
mediation,
this
particular
task,
which
up
to
recently
has been considered a classic RH
test,
imposes
diffi-
culties for LH
damaged subjects
as well. Similar
irregularities
in the
pro-
cessing
of faces
portraying
emotions were found in a
study
of normals
by
Strauss and Moscovitch
(1981). They
discovered no visual field
asym-
metries 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 be-
tween 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
lateral-
ization 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
neuropsychol-
ogy,
from the clinical literature of Broca's
early
work in the nineteenth
century
to
present-day experimental studies,
has examined
only
one neuro-
anatomical 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 anat-
omy,
the
superior/inferior
and
anterior/posterior contrasts). Although
the
left/right dichotomy
is
easy
to
identify neuroanatomically
and is amenable
326
Applications
to
Teaching
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,
ana-
tomical, histological
and
cytochemical
differences,
and most
importantly,
in terms of the neurofunctional control of somatic and
psychological
be-
havior,
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 differ-
ences 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
par-
ticularly germane. Jacobs (1977)
concludes with the
wry
observation that
"It must
always
be remembered that
things easy
to measure are not neces-
sarily 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 di-
mensions. One wonders if we are not
witnessing
a modern form of
phre-
nology. 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 sub-
cortical 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 ques-
tion,
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 stu-
dents
studying
with a
strict,
audiolingual
method
only employ
the tem-
poral
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 dif-
ferent methods score different
points
depending
on how much
neuropsy-
chological
information is bounced around inside the cranium. In the ex-
ample 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 re-
search? Does the
quantity
of nervous tissue involved in cerebral
processing
327
TESOL
Quarterly
carry
with it
any implicit
normative evidence? Does
quantity imply qual-
ity 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
at-
tempts
to seek a
neurolinguistic reality
to
justify
certain classroom tech-
niques
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,
experi-
ence,
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
asymmetry
of 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
neuropsychological
model of
language.
Applied Psycholinguistics
1:225-278.
Bever,
T. 1974. The relation of
language development
to
cognitive develop-
ment. 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
implications
of
hemispheric specialization.
In M. C. Wittrock
(Ed.),
The human brain.
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:
Pren-
tice-Hall.
Bolinger,
D. 1972. The influence of
linguistics:
Plus and minus. TESOL
Quar-
terly
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 asym-
metry.
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 neuro-
logical
and
psychological study.
Journal
of Speech
and
Hearing Disorders
29:307-311.
Dekosky, S.,
K.
Heilman,
D.
Bowers,
and E. Valenstein. 1980.
Recognition
and
discrimination of emotional faces and
pictures.
Brain and
Language
9:206-
214.
328
Applications
to
Teaching
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. Psycho-
logical
Review 75:206-221.
Galloway,
L. 1979. The cerebral
organization
of
language
in
bilinguals
and
second
language
learners: Clinical and
experimental
evidence.
Unpub-
lished 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,
Neurosur-
gery,
and
Psychiatry
37:727-738.
Gruber,
F. and S.
Segalowitz.
1977. Some issues and methods in the neuro-
psychology
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 Cere-
bral
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 neuro-
logical 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
per-
ception:
Effects of ocular dominance and
post exposural processes.
Neuro-
psychologia
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 develop-
ment. 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-handed-
ness. N.Y.: Academic Press.
Kotik,
B. 1975.
Investigation
of
speech
lateralization in
multilinguals. Unpub-
lished Ph.D.
Thesis,
Moscow State
University.
Krashen,
S. D. 1977. The monitor model for adult second
language perfor-
mance. 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
Teach-
ing
Forum 9:2-4.
329
TESOL
Quarterly
Lamendella, J.
1977. General
principles
of neurofunctional
organization and
their manifestation in
primary
and
nonprimary language acquisition. Lan-
guage Learning
27:155-196.
Lamendella, J.
1979. The neurofunctional basis of
pattern practice.
TESOL
Quarterly
13:5-19.
l'Hermitte, R.,
H.
Hecaen, J. Dubois,
A.
Culioli,
and A.
Tabourret-Kelly.
1966.
Le
probleme
de
l'aphasie
des
polyglottes: Remarques
sur
quelques
observa-
tions.
Neuropsychologia
4:315-329.
Maitre,
S. 1974. On the
representation
of second
languages
in the brain. M.A.
Thesis, University
of California at Los
Angeles.
Medin,
D. and M. Cole. 1975.
Comparative psychology
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.
Developmental Psychology
15:505-511.
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
disturbances in hemi-
plegics.
Indian
Journal
of
Medical Research 61:1395-1403.
Obler,
L.,
M.
Albert,
and H. Gordon. 1975.
Assymetry
of cerebral dominance
in
Hebrew-English bilinguals. Paper presented
at 13th annual
meeting
of
the
Academy
of
Aphasia, Victoria,
B.C.
Paradis,
M. 1977.
Bilingualism
and
aphasia.
In H. Whitaker and 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
re-
search.
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
Symposium
on
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
neurological theory.
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 con-
trol.
Unpublished manuscript, University
of Texas.
Vaid, J.
and F. Genesee. 1980.
Neuropsychological approaches
to
bilingualism:
A critical review. 1980. Canadian
Journal
of Psychology
34:419-447.
Vaid, J.
and W. E. Lambert. 1979. Differential cerebral involvement in the
cog-
nitive
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.
Neurolinguistic
foundations to methods of teach-
ing
a second
language.
IRAL 15:1-14.
Weinreich,
U. 1953.
Languages
in contact. N.Y.:
Linguistic
Circle of New
York.
330
Applications
to
Teaching
331
Wesche,
B. and E. Schneiderman. 1980.
Cognitive strategies
and differential
lateralization of the
bilingual's languages. Paper presented
at the TESOL
Convention,
San Francisco.
Whitaker,
H. A. 1978.
Bilingualism:
A
neurolinguistic perspective.
In W. C.
Ritchie
(Ed.),
Second
language acquisition
research: Issues and
implica-
tions. 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
neurological theory.
N.Y.: Aca-
demic Press.
Zangwill, O.
L. 1967.
Speech
and the minor
hemisphere.
Acta
Neurologica
et
Psychiatrica Belgica,
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 support@jstor.org.
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
TESOL QUARTERLY
Vol.
13, No. 1
March 1979
The
Neurofunctional
Basis of
Pattern Practice
John T. Lamendella
An
explanation
is
proposed
for the substantial failure of
pattern-practice
drills
to
equip
most second
language
learners with the
ability
to
automatically
access
Target Language grammatical knowledge
in communicative interactions. The
hypothesized explanation
is based on the neurofunctional
approach
described
in Lamendella
(1977)
and Selinker and Lamendella
(1978).
Relevant theo-
retical results of
clinicopathological investigations
in
neurolinguistics
include
the existence of a dominant
hemisphere
Speech
Copying
Circuit which de-
pends
on functional interactions between those neocortical
systems
involved in
the elaboration of
auditory speech input
and those neocortical
systems
involved
in the control of
articulatory speech output.
Taken
together,
conduction
aphasia
and the transcortical
aphasias point
out the functional
autonomy
of the cross-
channel
speech processing
circuit from
higher-level language processing,
and
the
special
status of
imitation, repetition,
and certain forms of substitution and
completion
as distinct forms of
speech
behavior
separable
from
propositional
language. During
mechanical
pattern-practice drills, many
second
language
learners
may functionally
disassociate the
speech copying
circuit from
higher-
level
language processing systems
(and from the
language acquisition process)
as an efficient means of
performing
a
repetitious cognitive
task not related to
communicative interactions.
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
meaning-
ful context within which sentences
may
be
produced
and understood
by
stu-
dents
(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 explana-
tion 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. Lamendella is Associate Professor of
Linguistics
in the
Linguistics Program,
San
Jose
State
University,
California.
5
TESOL
Quarterly
TABLE 1
Four Goals of Pattern-Practice Drills in the Oral
Approach
1. At the
phonological level, pattern-practice
drills were intended to consolidate
ap-
propriate
TL
articulatory habits,
and to
help
the student achieve
phonological
fluency through multiple repetitions
of sentences.
2. At the
syntactic level, pattern-practice
drills were assumed to consolidate the stu-
dent's inductive
generalizations
about TL
grammatical patterns,
based on the
repeti-
tion of
many specific
instances of the
pattern, produced
with different fillers.
3. 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.
4.
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 neuro-
functional 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
process-
ing
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
ap-
propriate goal
for the
majority
of second
language learning
students. It is also
clear that the oral
approach
and the
audio-lingual
method are
uniquely
struc-
tured 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 con-
clusions 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
support-
ing hypotheses
on the functional basis of
pattern practice,
I will review the
principal speech regions
which have been discovered to exist within the domi-
nant cerebral
hemisphere
of our
species. Figure
1
provides
both a lateral
(A)
and a horizontal
(B)
view of those
regions
of the dominant
hemisphere
in-
volved in
major aspects
of
speech processing.
6
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
hierarchically organ-
ized neural
systems responsible
for the
development
and use of
language. Primary lan-
guage 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. NONPRIMARY LANGUAGE
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 characterized
by
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
nonprimary language acquisition:
A. FOREIGN LANGUAGE LEARNING
The
typical
result of traditional methods of
language
instruction in a formal class-
room
setting. Foreign language learning
leads to
target language
communication skills
marked
by: 1)
the
application by
the learner of the
cognition hierarchy
of neurofunc-
tional
systems
as the basis for
learning
and
speech performance; 2) frequent
conscious
direction of
target language speech performance;
and
3)
the use of translation buffers
to
map
between the native
language'
and the
interlanguage.
B. SECONDARY LANGUAGE
ACQUISITION
The more
typical
result of
nonprimary language acquisition
in real-world 'naturalistic'
settings
in which
target language
communication skills are marked
by: 1)
the
application by
the learner of the communication
hierarchy
of neurofunctional
systems
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
pos-
sible 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 selec-
tive
disruption
of the
repetition
of
speech,
with
patients having varying degrees
of
difficulty
in
accurately reproducing speech
models. Patients can often
recog-
nize 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
7
TESOL
Quarterly
FIGURE 1
The
Principal Speech Regions
of the Human Brain
Lateral view of the dominant
(left)
cerebral
hemisphere.
Horizontal view of both the left and the
right
cerebral
hemispheres.
FL =
Frontal
Lobe,
TL
=
Temporal Lobe,
PL
=
Parietal
Lobe,
OL =
Occipital
Lobe;
SF =
Sylvian Fissure;
SMG
=
Supramarginal Gyrus,
AG
=
Angular Gyrus,
MFG = Middle Frontal
Gyrus
AG
ARCUATE FASCICULUS/
WERNICKE'S AREA
B
ARCUATE
FASCICULUS
BROCA'S AREA
WERNICKE'S
AREA
A
B
KEY:
A
BROCA'S AREA /
8
Pattern Practice
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 Wer-
nicke'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
cor-
responded
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
oversimplify
the
symptomological picture
in conduction
aphasia
too
much,
it
should be noted that while oral
reading
is
approximately
the same as
speech, reading compre-
hension 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 dis-
order. 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.
9
TESOL
Quarterly
TABLE 3
Three
Types
of Transcortical
Aphasia
TRANSCORTICAL MOTOR 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 comprehension
of
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).
TRANSCORTICAL SENSORY 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-articu-
lated,
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 TRANSCORTICAL APHASIA
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" phenomenon
described
by
Stengel
et al.
(1947).
For
example, primed
with the
phrase
"Ask me no
ques-
tions . .
," she
responded:
"I'll tell
you
no lies." Also without
comprehension,
this
patient
was able to
carry
on limited
learning
of
sung
verbal
material,
learn-
ing
the words
(and
music)
to new
songs.
The
investigators
concluded
that,
even with Wericke's area
intact,
language
comprehension
could not take
place
since the
functionally
isolated
speech
areas
were not
capable
of
arousing
associations in other cortical
regions. Since,
addi-
tionally, any ongoing activity
in other cortical
systems
could not enter the
speech
areas,
the
patient
was not able to
produce
true
propositional language.
The second case of mixed transcortical
aphasia
we shall discuss is
presented
in an excellent
study by
H. Whitaker
(1976),
of a 59
year-old
woman suffer-
ing presenile
dementia. The disorder was manifested
pathologically
as a
pro-
gressive
diffuse
atrophy
of cortical
tissue,
and
symptomologically
as a
progres-
sive deterioration of mental and
linguistic capabilities. Again,
for this
patient,
the
speech
areas remained
essentially
intact but
functionally isolated from other
cortical
regions.
The
patient produced virtually
no
spontaneous speech output
and had marked
impairment
of
speech comprehension.
The
presentation
of
stereotyped,
or
high-frequency utterances,
said with a non-terminal intonation
contour,
would sometimes elicit the
completion phenomenon
of
Stengel
et al.
(1947).
Under the
appropriate
conversational
conditions,
this
patient
would
also echo without
comprehension speech
models addressed to her.
What makes this case of
particular importance
to
understanding
the func-
10
Pattern Practice
tional
organization
of
neurolinguistic systems
is that the
patient
would some-
times
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 re-
petitions 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
STIMULUS ITEM
Echolalic
Responses
of a Patient With Mixed
Transcortical
Aphasia
PATIENT'S RESPONSE
Completions
Where do
you
. . .
Down
by
the old . . .
Jingle
bells . . .
(sung)
This
pencil belongs
. . .
Lexical
Modifications
fulfillment
information
apprehend
excite
aware
impure
Corrections
*There are two book on the table.
*He
give
me the
pencil.
*Can
you
told me
your
name?
*He
thinking
about
you.
*Do
you
want
go
movies?
*What time it?
*He ate he dinner.
*She dressed
itself.
Semantic Associations
entertainment
free
inaccurate
admonishment
obey
Disambiguations
growing
corn
shooting
hunters
hanging
coats
closing
windows
Repetition of
Semantic Anomalies
The
apple
was eaten
by
a stone.
The book is
very happy.
The table
painted
the chair.
Where do
you
live.
by
the
old,
old stream.
Jingle bells, jingle bells,
jingle
all the
way
...
Pencil
belongs
to
you.
(rest
of stanza
sung)
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
Apple
was eaten
by
a stone.
The book is
very happy.
The table
painted
the chair.
(adapted
from H. Whitaker
1976)
1.
a.
b.
C.
d.
2.
a.
b.
C.
d.
e.
f.
3.
a.
b.
C.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
4.
a.
b.
C.
d.
e.
5.
a.
b.
C.
d.
6.
a.
b.
C.
11
TESOL
Quarterly
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 tradi-
tional notion of
grammar encompasses
both LEVEL II and LEVEL III.
FIGURE 3
Three Levels of
Neurolinguistic
Structure
LEVEL Accurate
auditory perception SPEECH
I Accurate verbal
production
^
^A
Intact
phonological organization (phonemic patterns,
stress,
and
intonation, etc.);
overlearned
aspects
of
grammatical organization
which become automatic
v
(late
rules of
syntactic agreement,
function
words,
v
LEVEL
etc.); probably
certain semantic features of
syntactic
LANGUAGE
II
agreement,
function
words, etc.; probably
certain
(Automatic,
^
semantic features of lexical items in addition to
nonvolitional)
phonological
ones and certain overlearned
phrases
^
and verbal automatisms.
LEVEL Cognition, intellectual functions, and creative aspects LANGUA LEVEL
Cognition, intellectual
functions, and creative
aspects LANGUAGE
III
of
language. (Creative,
volitional)
(H.
Whitaker 1976:
51)
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 proposi-
tional
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 dis-
tribution 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
organiza-
tion,
there exist
many
functional
systems
whose
specialized
role is the inter-
coordination and
integration
of the
separate
activities of
sensory processing
channels and motor
processing
channels.3 For
example,
there exists a cross-
3
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).
12
Pattern Practice
channel circuit which allows the human infant to
develop hand-eye
coordina-
tion,
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 func-
tional 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
electrophysiological substrata,
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
cir-
cuits often
require
a
period
of
stochastic,
trial-and-error
learning
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
representational
information structures. Two
major types
of
representational
structures 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
involv-
ing 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
imple-
ment stored movement schemata
(see
Geschwind
1975; Johns
& LaPointe
1976).
Cross-
channel
copying
circuits also exist at this
representational
level 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 effi-
ciently reproduce
written
material,
often in the absence of
comprehension.
It is
likely
that
this circuit involves the
supramarginal gyrus
in the
temperoparietal region
of the
brain,
with
impulses
transmitted via the orbitofrontal fasciculus 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
con-
figurations
into
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
13
TESOL
Quarterly
The
operation
of this same circuit is
impaired
in conduction
aphasia,
since
such
patients
not
only
cannot shadow other
persons,
but have
great difficulty
in
reproducing speech
models in
general.
This
speech copying
circuit is
preserved
in the transcortical
aphasias,
even while
speech comprehension
and/or
speech
production
are
severely impaired.
An
important
characteristic of such
copying
circuits follows from the
plau-
sible 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
appropriate keys,
there
would be
very
few 100
word-per-minute typists. Impressionistically,
in close
shadowing
of the
speech
of another
person,
it seems that
comprehension
of a
given
sentence tends to follow the actual
production
of that sentence. We
may
conclude that it is
possible,
and often
adaptive,
to
functionally
disassociate a
copying
circuit from
higher systems
within that same functional domain. There-
fore,
the disassociation of the
speech repetition
function from
language
com-
prehension
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 information
processing.
The reader will
perhaps
not be
surprised
when I
suggest
that in order to
efficiently perform pattern-practice
drills,
it is
helpful
to
functionally
disassociate
the
speech copying
circuit from
higher-level language processing.
It is
precisely
this "short circuit" which would facilitate the fluid
carry
out of choral and in-
dividual
performance
on
pattern-practice
drills. There can be little doubt that
some subset of second
language
learners do disassociate the
speech copying
cir-
cuit
during
classroom
practice, though
it would be difficult to
prove just
how
many
do
so,
and how often. What I
hope
to do here is establish the
plausibility
of such a functional disassociation
being
an
integral part
of
pattern-practice
drills in the classroom.
To establish this claim
beyond
a reasonable doubt would entail
specific
empirical
confirmation that the
speech copying
circuit itself
possesses
the
poten-
tial to learn to control the substitutions and other
manipulations
characteristic
of the sentences
produced by
students in
response
to the teacher's
cueing during
pattern-practice
drills. 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) convincingly
shows for the native
language, speech processing
at this level can in fact muster a certain level of lexical and
syntactic compe-
tence,
including
the
potential
to
modify
the word class of an
input speech
model.
Over and above the
capacities
we have attributed to the
speech copying
circuit,
the
learning
which takes
place
between the time a student first
attempts
a
pattern-practice
drill and the
point
at which the student becomes
proficient
at
this endeavor seems to involve at least three
processes:
of neurofunctional
organization,
and in
many
functional domains
including speech
and lan-
guage,
there exist information
processing
circuits which allow the efficient behavioral
repro-
duction of
perceived sensory arrays.
14
Pattern Practice
1) making
the
appropriate
identification of 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 current
phonological
movement schema
representation
of the model sentence.
Once
mastered,
these
processes
would not
require
conscious
direction,
and there
is no reason
why
the involvement of
higher
level
language systems
would be
required
for their execution.
The
hypothesized
functional disassociation between the
speech copying
cir-
cuit and
higher-level language systems,
done
by
some subset of students as a
means of
performing pattern-practice
drills more
efficiently,
would account for
the
impression
of
many
teachers and students
that,
while
engaged
in
pattern-
practice drills,
the student's mind is often on other
things.
Thus
far,
the
proposed
information
processing
basis of
pattern-practice
drills would not be
particularly upsetting
to the traditional
behaviorist/applied
linguist
belief in the
utility
of mechanical drills.
However,
there remains the
serious
question
of whether the second
language acquisition process
is
actually
facilitated or inhibited
by
such
drilling.
Furthermore,
it is not at all obvious
that
pattern-practice
exercises constitute useful
practice
of TL
grammatical
knowledge
once it has been
acquired.
An
adequate
answer to these two crucial
questions requires
an
explicit understanding
of how much and which
types
of
grammatical learning
the
systems
at the level of the
speech copying
circuit are
capable
of
achieving
while disassociated from
higher
level
systems
within the
relevant functional
hierarchy. Additionally,
we must understand more
thoroughly
the circumstances under which
any
automation of behavioral
sequences
would
take
place
as a direct result of the
practice
achieved
by
mechanical
pattern-prac-
tice drills. To
approach
these
issues,
I shall
briefly
discuss certain
aspects
of the
automation of behavioral
sequences
in neurofunctional
systems.
4. Automation in Neurofunctional
Systems
When first confronted with the need to
acquire
new information structures
as the basis for
performing
a novel behavioral
task,
a learner must
identify
the functional
hierarchy
best suited to this
learning,
then establish the
appro-
priate
level and
subsystems
within the
hierarchy
with which to
begin
the learn-
ing process.
It seems to be a
general
characteristic of 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 & Lamendella
1978;
cf. also the "monitor model" of Krashen
1977).
In
part,
because of the
high
demands
placed
on available
processing
re-
sources,
NFSs
operate
under the
imperative
to
opt
out of the monitor mode
when
possible.
One of the two
major ways
of
accomplishing
this involves a
process
of automation in which the executive of the NFS directs the construction
of information schemata stored as automated subroutines at a lower level within
TESOL
Quarterly
the
hierarchy.6 Many
facets of overt
speech production
and covert
speech
com-
prehension,
once
acquired by higher
level
systems,
are
likely
stored as auto-
mated subroutines at lower levels within the communication
hierarchy.
Such
subroutines
may
be
implemented
either
automatically
under
pre-specified
con-
ditions,
or as called
up by
the executive which
originally
directed their con-
struction.
Automated
speech sequences
tend to remain intact
despite
a
pathological
disruption
of the
higher
level
systems
of the dominant
hemisphere.
The emotion-
charged 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 de-
spite
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 dis-
association of the
speech copying
circuit from these
higher
level
systems during
pattern practice certainly
would tend to
impede
the
process
of
secondary
lan-
guage 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 memorization device 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,
neuromotor information 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 interpretation
which 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
lan-
guage 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
com-
petence (Lamendella 1975).
16
Pattern Practice
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
ob-
served 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 pho-
nological 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
cogni-
tion
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
com-
petence
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 communica-
tion
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
ap-
proach
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-formulaic
speech
is that
they
seem to be
mapped
as a unit
directly
into some
semantic-conceptual representation
without
having
undergone
syntactic analysis by gram-
matical
systems
above the level of the
speech regions.
Since
pattern-practice
drills 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 im-
portant
facet of
language acquisition.
17
TESOL
Quarterly
from
higher-level language processing systems.
Once TL
grammatical knowledge
was
acquired by
these
higher systems
within the communication
hierarchy,
further
practice
in
communicating would,
it is
hoped,
lead to the automation
of
appropriate
TL
speech
habits at lower levels.
6.
Summary
The
major
reason
why pattern-practice
drills fail to
accomplish
successful
secondary language acquisition
is that
they prompt
most learners to
engage
functional
systems
which
actually
form an
inappropriate
basis 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
incorporation
of
appropriate
modifications 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-practice
drills.
3. Since the
systems
of the
speech regions operate mainly
at the level of
phonolog-
ical
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
pho-
nology
or
grammar may
be evoked
automatically only
in further classroom exer-
cises. 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
problem
of
repetition:
a
study
of "conduction"
aphasia
and 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. Re-
printed
in H.
Goodglass
and S. E. Blumstein
(Eds.) Psycholinguistics
and
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 move-
ment. American Scientist
63,
2: 188-195.
18
Pattern Practice
Geschwind, N.,
F. A.
Quadfasel
and
J.
M.
Segarra.
1968. Isolation of the
speech
area.
Neuropsychologia
6: 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
climncal
features and
underlying mechanisms, pp.
123-156 in Vol.
3, H. Whitaker and H. A. Whitaker
(Eds.).
Hakuta,
K. 1974. A
preliminary report
on the
development
of
grammatical morphemes
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'aphasie
de 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:
Apraxia
of
speech, pp.
161-199 in H. Whitaker and H. A. Whitaker
(eds.),
Vol. 1.
Kleist, K. 1962.
Sensory aphasia
and amusia. Oxford:
Pergamon
Press.
Konorski, J.,
H.
Kozniewska,
and L.
Stepien.
1961.
Analyses
of
symptoms
and cerebral
localization of the audio-verbal
aphasia. Proceedings of
the VIIth International
Congress of Neurology
2: 234-235.
Krashen,
S. 1977. The monitor model for adult second
language performance, pp.
152-
161 in M.
Burt,
H.
Dulay
and M. Finocchiaro
(Eds.) Viewpoints
on
English
as a
second
language.
New York:
Regents.
Lamendella,
. T. 1975. Maturational
stages
in the
development
of communication
systems
by the child. California
Linguistics
Association Conference.
(Reprinted
by
ERIC
Clearinghouse.)
Lamendella, J.
T. 1977. General
principles
of neurofunctional
organization
and their
manifestations in
primary
and
non-primary language acquisition. Language
Learn-
ing
27,
1: 155-196.
Luria,
A. R. 1970. Traumatic
aphasia.
The
Hague:
Mouton.
Marr,
D. 1969.
Theory
of cerebellar cortex.
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 communicative
competence.
TESOL
Quarterly 7,
1: 25-34.
Rubens,
A. B. 1977. Transcortical motor
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 inter-
language learning. Interlanguage
Studies Bulletin 3, 2+3.
Slager,
W. R. 1973.
Creating
contexts for
language practice.
TESOL
Quarterly 7,
1:
35-50.
Stengel, E.,
M. D. Vienna and L. R. C. P. Edin. 1947. A clinical and
psychological
study
of echo reactions. Journal of
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: Neurolinguistic
studies.
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. Whitaker and 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.
19





ULTIMATE ATTAINMENT
IN L2 PROFICIENCY
(PARADIS)
P
A
G
E

P
R
O
O
F
S

J
O
H
N

B
E
N
J
A
M
I
N
S

P
U
B
L
I
S
H
I
N
G

C
O
M
P
A
N
Y
9>7FJ;H
Ultimate attainment in L2 prociency
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 proper-
ties; and (3) implicit components of language are dierent in nature and subject to
dierent 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 dierent external factors. ese considerations are
essential in the investigation of a critical period for language acquisition.
ere are basically two schools of thought on the critical period hypoth-
esis: neuroscientists assume that there is some form of critical period that is too
obvious to warrant discussion, let alone a controversial debate; language teach-
ers and social psychologists are adamant that there is no such thing as a critical
period and refuse to even consider neurological data. e term critical period
is so controversial that it would be counterproductive to use it here. Suce it to
mention the dierences between ultimate attainment in L2 as compared to L1 and
investigate the neurophysiological factors that account for the readily observable
and widely acknowledged dierences. 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): ese 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 dif-
ferent 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 animals, including other primates. erefore, the notion of an optimal period
for acquiring languages will be proposed aer discussion of the available data.
e 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 nd
it excruciatingly dicult and some never get beyond the most basic rudiments. Why
is this so? e 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.
P
A
G
E

P
R
O
O
F
S

J
O
H
N

B
E
N
J
A
M
I
N
S

P
U
B
L
I
S
H
I
N
G

C
O
M
P
A
N
Y
::o Declarative and procedural determinants of second languages
Not just the manner of appropriation, but the nature of what is appropri-
ated (competence vs. knowledge) is aected 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 rst, 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 prob-
lems when French is acquired aer the age of 3 (Mhring, 2001). Aer age 6 or 7,
second language appropriation relies more and more on conscious learning, thus
involving declarative memory.
:. Ultimate attainment in L1 and L2
Birdsong (2006) remarks that there is a widespread belief that native-like attain-
ment by late L2 learners will be conned 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 ndings 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 o-line tasks. In any
case, the learners oen do better on o-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 con-
texts, which depend on experience (including incidental experience
1
) rather than
explicit instruction, remain incomplete). is would suggest that there is some-
thing peculiar to such tasks. One aspect worth considering is that o-line tasks
are known to rely on explicit knowledge, hence on declarative memory rather
than implicit competence. is 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 aer which a second language
does not reach native-likeness in all aspects of use, as shown in Birdsongs (2006)
overview and (2007) presentation. is is not to say that, aer many years of total
immersion and practice, L2 never becomes very close to native-like in many
aspects suciently so for everyday practical purposes.
:. New words can be acquired incidentally when listening to, and reading, a story while
focusing on comprehension. e meaning of words is learned even if one does not remember
having encountered them in the text (Horst, Cobb, & Meara, 1998).
P
A
G
E

P
R
O
O
F
S

J
O
H
N

B
E
N
J
A
M
I
N
S

P
U
B
L
I
S
H
I
N
G

C
O
M
P
A
N
Y
Chapter 4. Ultimate attainment in L2 prociency :::
Birdsong proposes that there may not be a single linguistic task that some
individual cannot fully master (in relative isolation) in L2. is means that, in prin-
ciple, any given linguistic task can be mastered by someone. But there denitely
seems to be a dearth of individuals able to master all components. Native-like
prociency in the second language is almost never acquired and second-language
processing is slower (Toppelberg, 1997). Why should this be?
Dierent individuals are able to deal with any one or two components of sec-
ond language processing, but not all components at the same time. is 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 automa-
tized 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 dierent 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. e dierence in kind between these two processes results in phonol-
ogy, 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 specically examine the ability of L2 users to pass for native speak-
ers indicate that passing for a native speaker is a temporary, context-, audience-,
and medium-dependent performance (Piller, 2002; Marinova-Todd, 2003). is
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 declarative-
memory impairments (amnesia, Alzheimers 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 aect 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, dierent components of the implicit language system are appropriated inde-
pendently of each other at dierent rates and to dierent extents. is contrasts
with the way very young children simultaneously acquire phonology, morphology
P
A
G
E

P
R
O
O
F
S

J
O
H
N

B
E
N
J
A
M
I
N
S

P
U
B
L
I
S
H
I
N
G

C
O
M
P
A
N
Y
::i 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 aer much concentration on that particular component, independently of all
others. Eort, hence conscious control, is exerted in developing a particular lan-
guage component in a way that is not the natural way of developing implicit lin-
guistic competence. e latter is achieved by developing the various components
of language structure in parallel, incidentally, without paying attention, and with-
out focusing ones eorts on any specic subcomponent (phonology, morphology,
syntax, semantics and the grammatization of the lexicon). ey are all internalized
simultaneously (possibly at dierent levels of development in each, but concur-
rently nevertheless). us, 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 particu-
lar message, modulated by the specic situational context, the knowledge of the
interlocutors beliefs, and placing emphasis on the appropriate concept through all
means aorded by the grammar i.e., prosody, word order, inectional morphol-
ogy, loudness, speed of delivery, etc.
In Marinova-Todds (2003) study, some L2 learners failed to achieve native-
like levels of prociency in grammar knowledge, but scored within the native
range on pronunciation measures, whereas other L2 learners achieved native-
like scores on grammar measures and failed to achieve native accent in the L2.
us, some highly procient 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 eort 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 procient 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.
e 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 awed.
Normal language performance incorporates all components and puts them into
action simultaneously. is is made possible because the various integrated
P
A
G
E

P
R
O
O
F
S

J
O
H
N

B
E
N
J
A
M
I
N
S

P
U
B
L
I
S
H
I
N
G

C
O
M
P
A
N
Y
Chapter 4. Ultimate attainment in L2 prociency ::
functions are automatic, without conscious control, in which case, there is no dis-
persion of eort.
As Hyltenstam and Abrahamsson (2003) point out, the subtle dierences that
seem to exist between native and native-like prociency are probably highly insig-
nicant in all aspects of the second language speakers life and endeavors, although
very signicant for a theory of human capacity for language learning (p. 580).
i. e optimal period
e 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 exible in that it is not categorical
(all-or-nothing) and admits of variability among individuals with respect to matu-
rational deadlines and length of developmental stages (themselves determined by
complex interactions between genetic and experiential factors). e fact that there
are (rare) exceptions does not mean that there is not a general principle at work.
(Some sheep are born with ve legs;
2
this does not prevent encyclopedias and vet-
erinary 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. e gradual decline in procedural memory for language forces
late second-language learners to rely on explicit learning, which results in the use
of a dierent cognitive system from that which supports their native language.
It is the acquisition of implicit competence that is aected by age, both biologi-
cally (gradual loss of plasticity of the procedural memory for language aer 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 inter-
nalization and automatic use of implicit linguistic competence, then an optimal
period aects 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 con-
siderable 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 brains steroidal milieu
(Mooney, Prather, & Roberts, 2008).
i. One specimen is exhibited at the Muse Cantonal de Zoologie, Lausanne, Switzerland.
P
A
G
E

P
R
O
O
F
S

J
O
H
N

B
E
N
J
A
M
I
N
S

P
U
B
L
I
S
H
I
N
G

C
O
M
P
A
N
Y
::| Declarative and procedural determinants of second languages
Human FOXP2 is a gene whose integrity is necessary (but not sucient) for
the acquisition of implicit linguistic competence. It determines the expression of
various genes at specic 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 compensa-
tory mechanisms in order to appropriate language through learning.
e optimal period thus refers to the period during which individuals must
be exposed to language interaction if they are to acquire linguistic competence.
is 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-time
3
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). e optimal period that applies to
implicit linguistic competence can be masked to some extent by reliance on compen-
satory mechanisms whose control can be considerably speeded-up. To the extent that
procient L2 is subserved by declarative memory, it is not susceptible to the optimal
period. Not only does L2 performance dier from L1, but it diers along the implicit/
explicit dimension. Given that vocabulary learning is sustained by declarative mem-
ory (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 Alzheimers disease).
. Optimal window of opportunity
To ascertain the learners potential in post-adolescent L2 acquisition is a legiti-
mate goal and a commendable enterprise. e very fact that the question is posed
. As opposed to o-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.
P
A
G
E

P
R
O
O
F
S

J
O
H
N

B
E
N
J
A
M
I
N
S

P
U
B
L
I
S
H
I
N
G

C
O
M
P
A
N
Y
Chapter 4. Ultimate attainment in L2 prociency ::,
highlights the fact that there is a dierence 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 rich-
ness of vocabulary varies between native speakers, the ability to fully acquire the
basic phonology, morphology, and syntax of the individuals topo-/sociolect does
not. ere are indeed dierences in what individuals can do with their native lan-
guage, 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. at means
that their output is consistent, that is, without variability: they do not vibrate their
vocal aps for the right number of milliseconds or place the adverb in the correct
position only 75% of the time (or above chance, as is oen 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.
ere seems to be a period from birth to age 4 or 5 aer which native-
likeness 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 aer that
age, native-likeness is rarely, if ever, achieved on all language tasks even though
behavioral measures may improve especially aer 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 o-line than
on-line tasks and poorer results on those aspects that are more dicult 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 benets.
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). e 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.
e timing of the initial language experience during human development strongly
P
A
G
E

P
R
O
O
F
S

J
O
H
N

B
E
N
J
A
M
I
N
S

P
U
B
L
I
S
H
I
N
G

C
O
M
P
A
N
Y
::o Declarative and procedural determinants of second languages
inuences 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 classiers that rely
on spatial relationships. is region is less susceptible to modication by experi-
ence aer puberty. Adolescent ASL rst-language learners cannot process the lan-
guage as eciently 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 tted 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 diculty with syntactic
structures that cannot be semantically mediated. e authors conclude that his
development is consistent with the hypothesis that there is a critical period for rst
language acquisition, especially with respect to syntax. ey point out that indi-
viduals who were not exposed to language until aer 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 appro-
priated aer early childhood is similar to that of L2 learning in deaf individu-
als. Participants born with normal hearing subsequently lost in late childhood,
who had then learned ASL, outperformed those who appropriated ASL as a rst
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
identiable language decits at age 9 (Hyltenstam & Abrahamson, 2003). e
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 Rnnberg 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 le-hemisphere dominance for a working memory task performed
in sign language, in line with the ndings for working memory in spoken language.
ose who started learning sign language at school seemed to apply explicit treat-
ment 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. e authors suggest that the dierence in
their results for the two groups might reect an age-of-acquisition eect.
As delay in exposure to a rst language increases, accuracy of grammaticality
judgments decreases, independent of ASL syntactic structure. e onset of rst
language acquisition aects the ultimate outcome of syntactic knowledge for all
P
A
G
E

P
R
O
O
F
S

J
O
H
N

B
E
N
J
A
M
I
N
S

P
U
B
L
I
S
H
I
N
G

C
O
M
P
A
N
Y
Chapter 4. Ultimate attainment in L2 prociency ::
subsequent language acquisition (Boudreault & Mayberry, 2006: 608). Adults have
largely lost the ability to learn a language without reecting on its structure and
have to use alternative mechanisms to learn a second language (DeKeyser, 2000). In
Harley and Harts (1997) study of students enrolled in L2 early (starting in grade 1)
and late (starting in grade 7) immersion programs, analytical language ability (rely-
ing on conscious memory) was the only signicant predictor of L2 prociency
(tested in grade 11) in the case of late but not early immersion students.
Ross and Bevers (2004) study comparing the sensitive period for language
acquisition in two populations of deaf individuals (with familial right- or le-
handedness) found that when both populations are exposed to language in early
childhood, comparable levels of prociency are attained. However, individuals
with familial le-handedness show evidence of a shorter sensitive period. Age of
acquisition rather than years of experience determined sign language prociency.
is suggests that genetic factors are involved that apply to both handedness and
language, and that their expression is sensitive to time of rst 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 con-
sistent with a merged category, whereas simultaneous bilinguals were at least as
good at discriminating between them as unilingual speakers. is 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 specic language, which results in language-specic prototypes
that assist infants in organizing speech sounds into categories (Kuhl et al., 1992).
e 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. Aer 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 identied a single adult learner who is indistin-
guishable from a native speaker in all relevant aspects of the L2.
|. e optimal period is restricted to implicit linguistic competence
e optimal period applies to the normal acquisition of language, which results in
implicit linguistic competence. But language can also be learned, using cerebral
P
A
G
E

P
R
O
O
F
S

J
O
H
N

B
E
N
J
A
M
I
N
S

P
U
B
L
I
S
H
I
N
G

C
O
M
P
A
N
Y
::8 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 prociency. Its controlled use
can be suciently speeded up to be perceived as native-like as is the case with
the L1 of intelligent genetic dysphasic individuals (Paradis & Gopnik, 1997).
e use of declarative memory to compensate for gaps in L2 implicit com-
petence is reected in the considerable inter-individual variability in attainment
between late L2 learners compared to considerable inter-individual homogene-
ity 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 o-line relative to on-line tasks, the decline with age,
and in general, the ease with L1 vs. the diculty with L2.
|.: Inter-individual variability in attainment
Acquisition via procedural memory is available to everyone up to about 5 years of
age, aer 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 deciency 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 diculty
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 struc-
ture) 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. is 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 rst 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 individuals 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 pro-
ciency (i.e., mastery of phonology, morphology, syntax and the lexicon) but by
other means (cf. Rieber & Vetter, 1995).
P
A
G
E

P
R
O
O
F
S

J
O
H
N

B
E
N
J
A
M
I
N
S

P
U
B
L
I
S
H
I
N
G

C
O
M
P
A
N
Y
Chapter 4. Ultimate attainment in L2 prociency ::
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 dierently 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 auto-
matic processing would be evidence that, aer a certain age, one has to resort to
an altogether dierent processing mechanism because the acquisition of implicit
competence is no longer possible (or extremely time-consuming and inecient).
Whereas procedural memories are more resistant to loss over time than declara-
tive memories (which are especially vulnerable in aging), procedural memory for
language acquisition becomes less ecient 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, dierences
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 lan-
guages in daily life ever since, with comparable levels of prociency in the com-
prehension of both) showed less extensive cerebral activation during lexical
search and retrieval in the language acquired rst, suggesting that additional
resources were recruited within a dedicated network when generating words in L2.
(See Mack, 1984, 1986, for experimental evidence of dierences in relatively early
bilinguals.) Even individuals with a very young onset of L2 experience diverge
at the level of ne 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).
ere 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 childs 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 peers
4
); (2) generalization across the two language
|. e usefulness of form-focused instruction, as discussed in Chapter 3, is exemplied in
the success of the more recent introduction of explicit grammar in immersion classes where,
before, high levels of uency were accompanied by notoriously poor accuracy (Lyster, 1990,
2004; Spada, 1997; Day & Shapson, 2001; Jean, 2005).
P
A
G
E

P
R
O
O
F
S

J
O
H
N

B
E
N
J
A
M
I
N
S

P
U
B
L
I
S
H
I
N
G

C
O
M
P
A
N
Y
:io Declarative and procedural determinants of second languages
subsystems and inuence of the items rst acquired and most oen activated on
the corresponding items in the other language.
e undeniable inuence of social and educational variables on L2 appro-
priation 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 avail-
able for automatic use. is inability is compensated for by relying on conscious
learning, using declarative memory. e numerous causes of inter-individual
dierences in attainment are a direct result of a number of internal and external
factors
5
to which the acquisition of a native language is impervious.
|.i e impact of working memory and level of education
In tasks that tap working memory and episodic memory (i.e., that rely on declara-
tive memory), there is an observed performance decline with age, whereas on
tasks involving procedural memory, age-related eects, when observed, are com-
paratively 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. is again sug-
gests, 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 mem-
ory in L2 especially when one considers that the entorhinal cortex and hip-
pocampus appear to incur greater annual shrinkage than other areas of the brain
(Birdsong, 2006: 31). is decrease is linked to age-related cognitive decits
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 con-
trol processes associated with prefrontal and cingulate cortices can operate only
on consciously perceived stimuli (Dehaene & Changeux, 2004: 1152). ese data
would suggest that adults have recourse to declarative memory to learn (rather
,. 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 individuals environment.
Internal and external factors interact in that, for instance, the sociolinguistic and political
status of L2 will aect an individuals attitude and motivation. e level of education, imposed
by external circumstances, nevertheless has an impact on the individuals ability to learn, in
that it develops reasoning capacity.
P
A
G
E

P
R
O
O
F
S

J
O
H
N

B
E
N
J
A
M
I
N
S

P
U
B
L
I
S
H
I
N
G

C
O
M
P
A
N
Y
Chapter 4. Ultimate attainment in L2 prociency :i:
than acquire) a second language, and that this task becomes more dicult with
age as the underlying cerebral structures that sustain declarative functions wane.
In a pilot experimental investigation, Fehringer and Fry (2007) found that
highly procient German speakers of English produced a signicantly higher
overall rate of hesitation phenomena in their second language than in their rst
(p = .000). e dierence 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. is is taken to indi-
cate that an additional cognitive load was imposed by working memory in L2.
e tasks that showed signicant dierences between languages are the ones
that demand most attention. In L1, greater production of optional complemen-
tizer phrases (whose embedding is considered a particularly demanding task) is
signicantly correlated (p = .033) with fewer hesitation phenomena (suggesting
automatic processing) whereas in L2 the correlation is not signicant. Working
memory scores were signicantly 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 nd it dicult 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 inuenced 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. ey conclude that, in fact, L2 users rarely reach a level
of uency approaching that of native speakers. Speakers are said to need to work
harder in order to display ease and uency in their second language; L2 working
memory may lack sucient attentional resources. Interestingly, eort and
attention are associated with conscious, non-automatic processes.
Level of education is oen cited as a signicant predictor of high prociency
achievement in L2. e advantage gained by the study of L2 as a foreign language
prior to immersion in the L2 environment is noticeable even aer decades of
exposure (Urponen, 2004). Instruction has a direct inuence on learning, not on
acquisition (cf. Harley & Hart, 1997). Instruction benets prociency, but with a
focus on explicit learning (Bialystok, 1997).
|. e 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
P
A
G
E

P
R
O
O
F
S

J
O
H
N

B
E
N
J
A
M
I
N
S

P
U
B
L
I
S
H
I
N
G

C
O
M
P
A
N
Y
:ii Declarative and procedural determinants of second languages
impacted by age of acquisition. ey conclude that these ndings 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 aected 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 speak-
ers who had learned German as a second language diered signicantly 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 con-
trols. Moreover, the dierence between correct and incorrect sentences was much
smaller in the L2 group. us, with regard to semantic aspects, the ERP dierences
were only quantitative. However, with regard to syntactic aspects, the dierences
were qualitatively dierent: Phrase structure violations elicited an early negativity
in comparison to correct sentences in the native listeners, an eect interpreted as
reecting automaticity. ere was no such modulation of the anterior negativity in
the L2 group, suggesting a deciency 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 inected for gender (the morphosyntactic con-
dition) 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
benet from morphosyntactic primes, whereas their semantic priming eects 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. e 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.
|.| e 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. e rst is consistent with
declarative learning in general: in contrast with native language acquisition, indi-
viduals dier considerably in various domains of cognitive ability (including
explicit language learning). e second corresponds to the observed growing
P
A
G
E

P
R
O
O
F
S