Second language teaching: A view from the right side of the brain (review)

Danesi’s latest book is a wonderful contribution to both the general field of linguistics and second language acquisition theory. The book is clearly organized, well written, and thorough in its presentation. Beginning with an overview of the different methodologies applied in the instruction of second languages over the past one hundred and twenty-five years, the author puts out for discussion and analysis the intersection of theoretical and applied issues that have defined modern linguistic thought in the West while presenting a basic course in neural anatomy, the functioning human brain, and the fields of cognitive linguistics and neurolinguistics. The book also has an excellent bibliography and a glossary of important terms. I focus my remarks here on several important questions D deals with and pursue where they might lead linguistic inquiry on the cusp of language and brain in the future.

The central problem addressed throughout D’s book is the failure of SLT (second language teaching) to produce the desired outcomes in student proficiency and competencies. He presents a variety of explanations, methodologies, experimental data, and theoretical approaches that have been offered over time to explain the problem, coupled with an impressive summary of the contributions of the major theoretical linguists, semioticians,¹ and cognitive scientists of the past century, including Ferdinand de Saussure, Roman Jakobson, Samuel Peirce, Charles Morris, Thomas Sebeok, Albert Valdman, Noam Chomsky, Leonard Bloomfield, Alexandr Luria, Lev Vygotsky, Georgij Lozanov, Eleanor Rosch, George Lakoff, Mark Johnson, and Ronald Langacker. D’s solution to the dilemma is firmly grounded in the neurosciences and their appropriate application to the practice and teaching of second language and its acquisition (102). This is not to say that there have not been attempts before D to apply neuroscience principles to the study of language acquisition; however, D provides us with information on how these principles have been applied in the past and evaluates the successes and failures, misinterpretations and controversial conclusions. The discussions of Lenneberg 1967 and Selinker 1972 are extremely pertinent and illustrative and merit discussion here.

Eric Lenneberg’s The biological foundations of language makes an argument in favor of a strong and limiting notion of neurological critical periods. Specifically, Lenneberg’s critical period for language is between birth and puberty; after puberty, the brain is unable to acquire a new language ‘to the same degree’ that it could prior to the onset of puberty (20). This type of application of the notion of critical periods to language acquisition has been commonplace since Lenneberg, but is fundamentally misguided and overly simplistic. D is critical of Lenneberg’s point of view and also provides a glimpse at those linguists (e.g. Steven Krashen, Susan Gass, and Carolyn Madden) who fought against such broad overgeneralizations of the concept (20). In his 2004 book ‘The great brain debate: Nature or nurture?’, biologist and neuroscientist John Dowling presents a more moderate view of critical periods, characterizing them as ‘periods of more susceptibility’ and further noting that these periods in cortical development form more of a continuum, as opposed to being clearly bounded with a beginning and an end (2004:50–51). Dowling also points out that these periods of sensitivity become more relevant in the context of stimulus deprivation and furthermore, that these periods can be modified by the environment (ibid.).

Lawrence Selinker’s claim that only five percent of L2 learners who study language in the classroom achieve ‘native-like proficiency in the SL’ is problematic for several reasons (3). While most linguists would agree that language study restricted to the classroom will not necessarily produce nativelike users (surely no one believes that three hours a week for nine-month periods, even in multiple yearly instantiations, can produce much of anything when it comes to robust competencies in an L2, especially in languages that are more distant from the L1), whether the resulting success stories are restricted to five percent is hard...