A Critical Examination of the Beliefs about Learning a Foreign Language at Primary School

successful, as the neurological capacity for language reception and production
changed from childhood to adulthood. Evidence of recovery from brain damage
and from studies of deaf children seem to confirm a critical period for first
language acquisition. Studies in sign language (Newport, 1990), for example,
provided evidence that the sign language of those children who were exposed
to it from birth was grammatically accurate whereas the language of those who
had started to learn to sign later in life displayed a number of ungrammatical
forms.

As McLaughIin (1984) stated, one inference frequently drawn from the critical
period hypothesis is the assumption that younger is better for learning a second
language. Andersson (1969,1973), for example, argued that the individual was
biologically programmed to acquire a language before puberty, that optimal
language processing was only available to children and that post-puberty
acquisition would be qualitatively different. Children, he argued, acquired
languages more quickly and more easily than adults and foreign languages
should therefore be taught in the elementary school.

However, the relevance of Penfield's and Lenneberg's studies for the learning of
a second language is questionable. Jakobovits (1970) argued that Penfield's
claims needed to be interpreted within the ∞ntext of Canada where, at the
time, early bilingual education was a matter of great public and political interest.
As Penfield himself admitted, his suggestion that children should be taught from
an early age by the 'direct method that mothers use' was influenced by his

64

<<   61   62   63   64   65   66   67   >>

More intriguing information