The Science of Language

One of the biggest trends in education today, especially elementary education, is language immersion. People tout the political, cultural, and intellectual benefits of learning another language almost constantly with claims like “It makes America look bad that so few people speak a second language.” “People who speak a second language are smarter.” “Learning a language as a child ensures you will speak it for life.”

What is interesting is the science behind language learning, and the science suggesting when a person should learn a second language, is nowhere near as conclusive. Consider the following:

-Much of the ability to learn a second language at all is genetic. The left Heschl’s gyrus controls the brains ability to distinguish pitch and tone, a major factor in tonal languages and even in non-tonal ones.

-There is documented evidence that learning a second language increases brain matter in the inferior parietal cortex. The younger someone learns the language, the more grey matter in the inferior parietal cortex. But as one scientist part of the study put it: “There are conflicting views about the comparative impact of language learning in different age groups, based both on findings and anecdotal evidence.” In other words, just because you learn a language at a young age does not mean you necessarily learn it well for life, or that it is better for everyone to learn a language as a young child.

-Not all languages are created equal. Just because a child speaks English as a native language does not mean that they are masters of it or even very good at it. English has one of the most complex and irregular grammar and syntax structures around. It also has more than 300,000 words. French, with a much simpler and more reliable grammar structure, has 42,000 words. Learning to write and speak quite well in English is not automatic or an inherited part of being a native speaker. It takes work.

-The infant, preschool, and elementary school years are the most formative years of a child’s development. While education is not a zero-sum game, a child’s attention span often is. So how do you choose between subjects? Do you want your child to receive less instruction in English – quickly becoming one if not the primary world language and one of the most complex – or math? How about less science, or less recess in an age where exercise has been dramatically proven as *the* most important factor in young brain development and science and technology the most profitable and dynamic research area in the world? Do you want to skip history lessons at the risk that “those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it”? When does a second language become a higher priority than these other skills?

-While it is true that learning a second language as a young child does not impede his or her ability to speak the first language well (studies of bilingual households show that while speech may be delayed by learning two languages, the long-term impact of the delay merely indicates a longer assimilation process, not any actual language development problems), speaking a language in the home is very different to devoting school time and hours to it or to one language over another.

-The idea that a second language “stimulates the brain” and thus merits learning on those grounds alone is kind of ridiculous. Many things stimulate the brain, and there are all sorts of simple exercises you can do (called Neurobics) to sharpen your brain and increase its activity. Consider these ideas from the Neurobics website:

Spend time in a new environment.
Smell new odors in the morning.
Take a shower with your eyes closed.
Try brushing your teeth with your non-dominant hand.
Learn to read braille.
Respond to a situation differently.
Find a new route to work.

-In purely practical terms, how do parents and a school board choose the second languages to teach? Do they look twenty years into the future and try to guess which language will give Americans the greatest opportunities for political collaboration (Chinese and Hindi)? For preventing future wars and understanding other cultures (Arabic, Chinese, Russian)? For doing business abroad to diversify and strengthen the U.S. economy (Chinese, Russian, Arabic, Hindi)? Or do you pick languages that do not have those strategic political, economic or security benefits but are easy enough to give students the confidence to pursue language learning (French, Italian, Spanish)? And what about those countries whose citizens have chosen not to reproduce at a replacement rate, ensuring that in fifty years there won’t be many of them left (Japan, France, Germany)? Do we stop teaching those languages altogether since there really aren’t going to be that many people (relatively speaking) left to use them? Or do we teach them for precisely that reason – to help preserve them? If so, why is it the financial responsibility of your school board to help Japan preserve its language?

These are huge and highly complex questions, which is why it surprises me that parents and school boards swallow the “learning a second language really young is great” pill so easily. Culture, economics, personal choice – all of these issues come into play even after (or if) all the brain and development issues are resolved.

In the end, we can only look at the science of brains and brain behavior, and use our own to make the best choices.