The Mind-set for English Language Learning: A Review of Cognitive Psychology and Neuroscience approach

Abstract

This paper discusses the second language learning from the latest developments of neuroscience and cognitive psychology approach in applied linguistics focusing upon the cognition and the brain.

Keywords: neuroscience, language acquistion, language retention, critical period hypothesis.

Introduction

Many people wrongly assume that second language learning (hereafter L2) is a slow and arduous process compared to native language (hereafter L1) acquisition.

Curiously, Not much is known about the rate at which second language learners learn. Although it is relatively new field of research in applied linguistics, some researchers are using neuroscience to disprove the theory that L2 acquisition and retention rate is slower than that of L1 acquisition rate.

This paper will explore the existing literature focusing on research outcomes

The Mind-set for English Language Learning:

A Review of Cognitive Psychology and Neuroscience approach

Naomi A. Sugai

with statistics and suggest further studies that can be undertaken in the future.

Morgan-Short et al. (2012) showed their study, in Plos One, a peer-reviewed science journal, that there was superior language retention of the L2 after several months (mean of 5 months) even with no exposure to the language. The study adopts a typical experimental design; Training (Implicit vs. Explicit) and Language retention (Extant vs. Potential). In the study, they found that neither explicit nor implicit training was more advantageous than the other at least in terms of retaining grammar. The study was designed to look at and compare both extant behavioral findings and Event Related Potentials (ERP) findings. ERPs measure brain electrical activity that is then measured in response to a specific event. The ERPs in this study showed more native-like retention after several months than at the end of the training sessions.

It also showed that ERPs were more native-like for the implicit group than the explicit group although according to the behavioral findings it was found that one was not more advantageous than the other. The differences in ERP suggest that the processing is different between the implicit and explicit group. Both groups were able to retain the L2 after months with no exposure.

Review of the above study

In this particular study there was a small group of test subjects. There were 21

test subjects. However, two were excluded from analysis for various reasons so the

data is based on 19 subjects. The subjects were tested 3-6 months (mean time 5

months) after they had learned an artificial language Brocanto 2.

As with many studies of this sort, the sample size of test subjects is very small.

It is clear that the study focuses on the ERP results and what they show about language retention in the L2 after several months of absence from the language.

However, with such a small sample size it could be argued that just these specific 19 people have the ability to retain the learned language.

It should be emphasized that the subjects learned an artificial language Brocanto 2. This ensured that the test subjects would not encounter the artificial language after the training and before the test. This part of the study was very controlled which ensures that results should be accurate. However, it would make it a more interesting study if an existing natural language was used to show the retention of the L2. It would be difficult to monitor whether the subjects were studying that language in the interim and before the test, which would be one of the limitations of that study. It would also be interesting to see the data for retention of different languages to find if there is a difference between artificial languages, existing natural languages, and also to compare languages. For example, is it easier to retain French after several months with no exposure than say Japanese?

Another criticism of this study is that subjects were tested at different times between 3 and 6 months. It could be argued that the retention rate at 3 months could be much higher and skew the results to make them look more positive.

Recommendations of a further study would be to test the same subjects at regular

intervals thereafter to see if the level of retention remains after a year, year and a

half, two years and so on. Another recommendation would be to try and test the

subjects at roughly the same time to see the long term effects of L2 retention and

whether any advantages of implicit or explicit learning surface at a later date.

Cao et al. (2013) in another study revealed that that high proficiency in a second language was due to greater involvement in the first language network. In this study, the participants were divided into 3 groups,; the CC group, CE group and EE group. The CC group consisted of Chinese speakers performing rhyming tasks in Chinese, the CE group were Chinese speakers performing the rhyming tasks in English, and the EE group English speakers performing the tasks in English.

Whilst doing the tasks the results were measured. Although the researchers predicted that that the CC group and CE group results would be similar, in fact the CC group and the EE group results were similar. The results imply that the native Chinese speakers, who were assigned to perform the tasks of rhyming in English they acquired in their later stage of life, could not link with and take advantage of their first language network and hence resulted in a low proficiency in the second language.

According to research by Stein et al., Reiterer et al. and Tastsuno & Sakai (as cited in Cao et al. 2013) “Several studies have shown that high proficiency in the second language is associated with reduced activation in the left IFG(inferior frontal gyrus (IFG) in the brain), and this has been attributed to less effortful processing.”

Proficiency also appears to be a factor influencing the patterns of assimilation and accommodation, but previous studies have provided mixed results. Some studies have found that increased proficiency in the second language is related to greater similarity to the first language during semantic judgment in a group of English–

German bilinguals (Stein et al., 2009), during listening to stories in a group of

Italian–English bilinguals (Perani et al., 1998), and during sentence production in a group of French– English bilinguals (Golestani et al., 2006)

Acquiring an L2 as an adult

The above studies were all conducted on adult language learners.

So, it occurs naturally the following simple question in the minds of students.

How is an L2 acquired after childhood? Previously, many researchers thought that the L2 could only be acquired during childhood, up until puberty. There is more awareness now that language acquisition is not linear and that with some conscious effort it is possible to acquire an L2 at a later stage in life. According to research by Dowens (2010) , there are many factors that influence L2 acquisition after childhood.

Ojima, et al., Jeong et al. and McDonald (as cited in Dowens 2010) state “language proficiency, similarity of syntactic structure of the first language (L1) and L2 and limitations of general cognitive resources such as working memory” are the factors that affect L2 learning in adults.

According to the brain researchers Diamond (1996) and Scheibel (1996) (as cited in Lombardi, 2008) indicate that we can literally grow our brains and call the thesis the dendritic fireworks theory. Every time something new is learned the brain grows new dendrites and neural connections.

This means that the ability to learn a language or any other subject for that

matter doesn’t start to deteriorate at a certain age. Whenever something new is

learned the brain will grow new dendrites and neural connections. As stated by

Murphy in his lecture (May.25

2014) “The number of neurons we have between the age of 10 and 70 only declines slightly. What this means is that unless you have a degenerative disease you can carry on studying and participating in new hobbies.”

Schegel et al. (2012) monitored how the structure of white matter in the brain changed as adults learned a second language. Through monitoring 11 English speakers taking a 9-month intensive Chinese course a surprising discovery was made. A region not generally included in neural models of language processing, the frontal lobe tracts crossing the genu of the corpus callosum, had the most significant changes. What can be understood from this is that the importance of white matter malleability cannot be underestimated in adult language learning. This study also opens up the idea of using longitudinal diffusion tensor imagining to learn about the cognitive processes in future adult language learning studies.

Filippi et al and Tan et al (as cited in Schlegal et al 2012) previous findings are supported by the results of this study, which found that in order to mediate switching between languages the development of control networks are needed.

These findings are also corroborated by Cao (2013) study.

Critical Period Hypothesis

According to Vanhove (2013) second language learners who have started

acquiring a language and stay exposed to that language early in life outperform

those who acquire a language later in life. Vanhove (2013) claims that this is often

mistaken for the ‘critical period’ (CP) of second language acquisition (SLA).

The critical period concept was first introduced by Penfield and Roberts in 1959 (as cited in Vanhove 2013). The critical period refers to an ideal time frame in which to acquire a language.

There are several factors to consider where CP research is concerned. Vanhove (2013) mentions that the age span for CP differs according to researchers.

Nowadays most researchers do not define a starting age for the critical period for language learners. However, most researchers believe that the cut off point for the critical period is before puberty. Some researchers put the cut off point at 12, whilst others put it at 15, 16 or even 18 years old.

Some researchers believe that there may be an earlier cut off point for specific language areas. The earliest being 12 months old in the case of phonology.

The relevance of setting to the critical period hypothesis (CPH) has been called into question. Does the critical period only apply to implicit learning? Those who have acquired the language by being immersed or does it apply to those who have had instructed learning? It is believed by most researchers that it applies to those who have received implicit learning. However, it is important to note that much of the CP research has included those who have had some L2 instruction.

Though most researchers primarily look at grammar and pronunciation when looking at the CP, some have tried to define a CP for different areas of language.

Ultimate attainment (UA) or the final state of L2 proficiency is the focus of the CPH

and the rate of language acquisition is not measured.

Learning as a child, adult and lifelong learning

Snow and Hoefnagel-Höhle (as cited in Finn et al 2014) claim that overall children attain language better than adults. It is important to note however that adults can learn particular facets of language more rapidly.

Flege, et al (cited in Finn et al) say this only applies in the short term. Only a small number of adults can produce native like proficiency in the long term when it comes to speech and perception. Finn et al (2014) study concluded through experiments that some facets of language were easier to learn than others for adults. This did not necessarily prove that language learning in children is superior.

Instead the outcome of the experiments focuses on how effort affects language learning in adults. Finn et al (2014) discovered whilst effort helps with word segmentation and order it hinders phonological patterns. Since the experiments were carried out using an artificial language the researchers have suggested further studies that delve deeper into the reasons why adults only find some facets of language learning difficult.

Knowland and Thomas (2014) study focuses on the capacity for adults to acquire new skills. Knowland and Thomas (2014) claim that there has been more research conducted regarding how learning takes place in the child brain rather than the adult brain. The study states “However, it is increasingly apparent that it could be equally fruitful to consider lifelong learning; a term taken here to mean learning new information and skills irrespective of the learner’s age and in circumstances including, but not limited to, formal classrooms.”

Since adult learning occurs throughout a prolonged period a time where

the learning environment changes it is a possible problem that the learning environment experienced during the sensitive period may not be relevant across a lifetime.

Ways to strengthen brain plasticity, expand and encourage learning to counter the change in environment is a fascinating aspect of educational neuroscience.

Kuhl et al (as cited in Knowland and Thomas 2014) found an interesting limitation to language learning in babies. In the study, babies were found to be incapable of learning Mandarin speech sounds from input via a television instructor but capable of learning those sounds if the instruction was given in person. What this shows is that the way in which input is given matters greatly.

Knowland and Thomas (2014) thoughts are that although it is not known for certain how the structure in the brain results in this outcome, at present it is believed that learning whilst interacting with another in person is more satisfying and therefore allows the input to be perceived in a more interesting way.

Murphy (May.25

2014) calls this “Get Emotional!” The general idea of “Get Emotional!” is to inject emotion into the classroom or learning environment to make learning more fun and therefore improve the probability of retention. This idea can be implemented regardless of age.

According to McCandliss et al. (as cited in Knowland and Thomas 2014) it is

possible to learn speech sounds as an adult. The example given was that although

Japanese speakers have difficulty in differentiating between the /l/ and /r/ sound

if they are exposed to those sounds over a period of time whilst emphasizing the

difference in sounds making the emphasis less over time it is possible for this type

of learning to happen. This is called “optimal stimulus presentation.”

The importance of feedback in adults has been noted by Elizabeth Tricomi et al. (as cited in Knowland and Thomas 2014) According to the study there was an increase in “behavioural performance when feedback was available and similar brain-level responses when feedback or reward were provided.” This offers an example of how best to encourage brain plasticity in adults.

Conclusion

Although the critical period hypothesis (CPH) continues to be a hotly debated issue, there has been more scientific research in recent years that disprove this hypothesis. Studies mentioned in this paper show language retention is possible even after long periods with no exposure to the language. It is also possible to acquire language later on in life with conscious effort with the exception of those with degenerative diseases. Those who learned and stayed exposed to language early on in life are mistaken as products of the critical period when in fact their superior language ability is due to a large amount of input over a prolonged period of time. Through neuroscience it is possible to pinpoint some key factors that help in adult learning and lifelong learning such as, feedback, learning environment, understanding how effort affects different types of learning and social interaction, which benefits adults as well as children. Much more is known about how learning occurs thanks to neuroscientific research. However, bigger research studies and more research needs to be undertaken in this field to draw more conclusive results.

It would be most beneficial if the research undertaken in the area of neuroscience

and language acquisition and retention could positively impact and change the way teachers teach both children and adults so that the learning can be more salient and engaging leading to retention and better quality of learning.

References

Dowens, Margaret Gillion., Vergara, Marta., Barber, Horacio A., and Carreiras, Manuel (2010) “Morphosyntactic Processing in Late Second-Language Learners” Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, Aug., 2010, Vol.22, Issue 8, pp.1870-1887.

Fan Cao, Ran Tao, Li Liu, Charles A. Perfetti, and James R. Booth (2013) , High Proficiency in a Second Language is Characterized by Greater Involvement of the First Language Network: Evidence from Chinese Learners of English, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, Oct., 2013, Vol.25, Issue 10, pp.1649-1663.

Finn, A.S., Lee, T., Kraus, A., Hudson Kam, C.L (2014) When it Hurts (and Helps to Try:

The Role of Effort in Language Learning PLos ONE, Jul2014, Vol.9 Issue 7, p1-9

Knowland, V., Thomas, M. (2014) Educating the adult brain: How the neuroscience of learning can inform educational policy International Review of Education/

Internationale Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft 2014, Vol.60 Issue 1, pg.99-122, 24p.

Lombardi, J (2008) “Beyond Learning Styles: Brain-Based Research and English Language Learners” Clearing House, May/Jun 2008, Vol.81 Issue 5, pp219-222, 4p.

Morgan-Short, K., Finger, I., Grey, S., Ullman, M.T. (2012) “Second Language Processing Shows Increased Native-Like Neural Responses after Months of No Exposure” PLos One, Mar 2012, Vol.7, Issue 3, pp.1-18.

Murphy, R. S. (2014) “The Mind, the Brain, and English Language Teaching” English Teachers Japan workshop, May.25

2014.

Schlegel, A., Rudelson, Justin J., Tse, Peter U. (2012)

“White Matter Structure Changes as Adults Learn a Second Language” Journal of

Cognitive Neuroscience Aug.2012, Vol.24 Issue 8, pp.1664-1670.

Vanhove, J. (2013) “The Critical Period Hypothesis in Second Language Acquisition: A Statistical Critique and a Reanalysis”

PLos ONE, Jul 2013, Vol.8, Issue 7, pp.1-15.