How Does Biology Affect Language Learning?

Second Language Acquisition Theory has identified several biological factors which influence language learning; chief among these are age and neurology. One of the most widely held beliefs about language is that it is easier for children to acquire new languages than for adults. SLA theorists have tried to determine the extent to which this is true and have attempted to explain how and why children learn differently than adults. Furthermore, since language processing occurs within the brain, scholars have conducted research questioning how language is physically stored, processed, and accessed by learners.

The significance of age for language learning came to the forefront of Second Language Acquisition Theory with the Critical Period Hypothesis. In 1959, Wilder Penfield and Lamar Roberts first proposed that there is a period during which learners can implicitly acquire a second language to a native-speaker’s level of competency but that, after this period, language learning is difficult and full acquisition is rarely successful. Noam Chomsky’s 1965 research argued that 6 children have a natural language acquisition device, which is a biologically given capacity for language learning apart from other cognitive abilities. Concrete evidence for this hypothesis was 7

Ellis, Understanding Second Language Acquisition, 27.

6

This idea developed into Noam Chomsky’s theory of Universal Grammar. In his view, children have access to a

7

“little black box,” containing knowledge of universals; since there are universal rules among languages (see Brown,

Principles of Language Learning and Teaching, 40–41 on Principles and Parameters), this allows children to

naturally acquire the grammar of their L1 because of the Language Acquisition Device (LAD). Adults, on the other hand, lose access to the device and must rely on cognitive abilities. Ellis, Understanding Second Language

developed by Eric Lenneberg in 1967, who conducted research on the language ability and aphasia of children and adults after brain trauma and that of the deaf and the mentally

challenged. After Lenneberg’s work, scholars of SLA and neuroscience researched this subject 8 thoroughly. Subsequent publications on the Critical Period Hypothesis determined that, although children do learn language more efficiently and although adults are unlikely to acquire native levels of competency, there is no clear point of discontinuity between these periods. Even so, the 9 role of age/maturity in acquisition is still a heavily researched and debated subject amongst SLA theorists and neuroscientists.

The Critical Period Hypothesis suggests that there is an ideal window for language acquisition. After this Critical Period, now also called the Sensitive Period, further language acquisition becomes much more difficult and effortful. Neuroscientists claim that the Critical Period is based on a theoretical “end of neural plasticity and thus the completion of hemispheric lateralization in the human brain.” There has been additional investigation conducted regarding 10 the role of cerebral dominance in language learning. The left hemisphere of the brain is

responsible for sequencing, logic, mathematics, and factual processing; the right hemisphere is

Ellis, Understanding Second Language Acquisition, 27; Ioup, “Age in Second Language Development,” 419–420;

8

Krashen, Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning, 72–73. The research on Genie, who was isolated until age 13 and had learned no language or social skills as a result, is often cited in discussions on the Critical Period Hypothesis. Curtiss’s 1977 research used Genie’s successful acquisition of vocabulary and

simultaneous failure to grasp complex grammatical structures to support his hypothesis that puberty marked the end of the critical period. However, Rymer’s 1993 publication attributed this to Genie’s emotional trauma which continued to manifest in adulthood.

See Ellis, Understanding Second Language Acquisition, chapter 1 and Ioup, “Age in Second Language

9

Development” for more research published on this topic and explanation of their conclusions.

Ioup, “Age in Second Language Development,” 419 (see also 421). See also Wattendorf and Festman, “Images of

10

the Multilingual Brain” for a discussion of neuroplasticity and the differences in L2 processing of those who began learning an L2 in childhood versus adulthood. This article also contains summaries of other major brain imaging studies on the effect of age in acquisition.

used for visualization, music, art, and intuition. Although certain aspects of language are not 11 entirely lateralized, the left hemisphere is said to control language by age five. A general 12 conclusion drawn from this research is that, although cerebral dominance does affect language processing and learning, “there is no necessary relationship between cerebral dominance and second language acquisition ability,” meaning that, while language is primarily an activity of the left hemisphere, right-brained individuals are no less able to acquire an L2. 13

Much research has been conducted on aphasia resulting from lesions on either side of the brain as well as on the neurological response to various stimuli to determine the relationship between language and the brain. The study of how neurological phenomena are related to 14 language learning is known as neurolinguistics. Neurolinguistics researches topics such as how the brain stores and processes an L1 and an L2, where vocabulary and grammar are stored in the brain, how someone might learn to speak or read again after sustaining brain damage, whether languages read left-to-right are processed differently than those read right-to-left, how the brain recognizes graphemes, and what differences exist in a dyslexic brain. Essentially, 15

Thus, those who are very analytical are said to be left-brained, and those who are particularly creative are said to

11

be right-brained. Joseph Bogen summarized this difference in his 1969 publications speculating that the two hemispheres of the brain utilize different cognitive methods: the left uses the “propositional” mode for the analytic and the digital, and the right uses the “appositional” mode for the analogic and synthetic. Krashen, Second Language

Acquisition and Second Language Learning, 71.

Krashen, Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning, 75–76.

12

Krashen, Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning, 76. Note that, while brain imaging

13

research exists to support the idea of lateral dominance, many SLA scholars now consider the left-brained/right- brained (learning and processing style of individuals) distinction to be a rather arbitrary and antiquated notion.

See chapter 6 of Krashen, Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning.

14

Beretta, “The Language-Learning Brain,” 65–66.

neurolinguistic theory explores how the abstract mental concept of language interacts with the physical brain. 16

The research conducted on the impact of biology on language learning has led to intriguing conclusions regarding the nature of language as it is processed by the mind, some of which are peripherally applicable to the Latin classroom. On the one hand, arguments in favor of the Critical Period Hypothesis would encourage offering Latin to young students in order to cultivate a higher level of acquisition in budding Latinists. Studies have also shown that 17 individuals who learn languages at a young age have higher levels of cortical efficiency as a result; learning Latin specifically, which already offers cognitive benefits, in childhood would 18 arguably be an even greater advantage to learners. On the other hand, research denying the Critical Period Hypothesis would offer hope that it is never too late to begin learning a language, a notion particularly appealing to academics who continually need to add more languages to their repertoire. In sum, studies on cerebral dominance have shown that language acquisition is a logical endeavor which also allows for creative means for learning. Although neurological research is not targeted toward aiding language classrooms, these studies can encourage teachers

This question of mind versus matter relating to language was explored by Descartes in the 17th century and

16

Joseph Priestley in the 18th. See Beretta, “The Language-Learning Brain” for the philosophical debate on this matter.

This is supported by the Classical education curriculum, which will be discussed in 4.1.3. The Grammar stage of

17

the Trivium is enacted while children are still young and able to retain a great deal of information with ease (if presented correctly). The goal is to give students the memorized aspects of Latin, such as basic vocabulary and paradigms, while they still “soak up information like sponges,” as the saying goes, so that students can spend the majority of their time in school learning to use the language, to discuss the content of texts, and to make their own arguments. Although it is unrealistic to expect teachers (or parents, I suppose) to turn children into Latin bilinguals, similar cortical benefits can be gained through certain types of exercises and activities that stimulate the brain.

Wattendorf and Festman, “Images of the Multilingual Brain,” 12–14.

to explore various teaching methods which engage both hemispheres of the brain in order to reach students with various types of stimuli. 19