Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 15 (2011) 143147

WCES-2011

To what extent does neurolinguistics embody EFL teaching

methods?
Ayegl Nergis *

Abstract

Neurolinguistists have provided a plethora of new and interesting research studies on how the human language is represented in
the brain and how learning neurologically takes place. However, only a limited number of attempts have been made to negotiate
neurolinguistics with educational sciences and especially with foreign language teaching methods. This paper aims to discuss that
if foreign language teaching methodologists examine findings of neurolinguistics, they can find alternative explanations on how
to improve the already existent teaching methods or even offer new methods and techniques for more effective instruction.
However, it is suggested that researchers working on neuroscience and education should come up with a new approach or
framework to negotiate these two fields of research to form sound suggestions.
2011 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.

Keywords: neurolinguistics; language acquisition; foreign language teaching methods; memory systems; language impairment

1. Introduction

Although neuroscience is relatively a young area of research, there have been some attempts to negotiate
neurological findings with social sciences, psychology and pedagogy in order to extract suggestions for educational
practices (Sebastian et al., 2010; Blakemore, 2010; Burnett et al. 2010); however, these attempts were very limited
due to the different nature of these two research areas. In this paper literature from both neurolinguistics and
neurobiology are reviewed in order to see whether it is possible to make sound connections between language
pedagogy and neuroscience.
Before discussing the possibility of these connections, we must have a better understanding of where findings of
neurolinguistics come from. Neurolinguistics mainly investigates linguistic development of normally developing
subjects (Grel, 2004), language loss in patients with brain damage (Ullman, et al. 2005b), and language use by
people with specific language impairment (SLI) (Marini et al., 2008). In this paper, such findings from research
studies of neurolinguistics that could be perceived as useful by educators, especially by English as a foreign
language (EFL) teachers will be introduced shortly and what neurolinguists assert about language development and
what educators need to know about this matter will be negotiated.

* Ayegl Nergis. Tel.: +9-0216-578-3007

E-mail address: aysegulnergis@gmail.com

18770428 2011 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.
doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.03.064
144 Aysegl Nergis / Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 15 (2011) 143147

2. Neurolinguistic links to language pedagogies

Concerning research on bilingual language development and language loss, Fabbros (2001) article on the
bilingual brain presents a detailed review about neurolinguistic aspects of learning a second language (L2).
According to Fabbro (2001), neurophysiologic and neuroimaging studies provided evidence about the onset of
efficient L2 learning. According to him, if L2 is learned after the age of 7, the representation of grammatical aspects
of L1 (first language) and L2 differed: automatic processing and accuracy in L2 seemed to be much lower than L1.
Fabbro (2001) discusses that the greater the knowledge of a language, the larger number of circuits activated in its
processing. It means that automatic use of a language indicates the extended use of many brain regions. However, in
less automatic tasks, only certain parts of the brain will be activated (Fabbro, 2001). Its implication for L2 teaching
is that L2 teaching methodologies should focus on activities, tasks and procedures which aim to make L2 use more
automatic in order to do that L2 methodologists should follow the procedures in which L1 learning take place. In
short, this information provides language teachers with enough evidence to design an L2 learning environment
which is as much like as possible L1 learning conditions. In terms of EFL teaching methodology, this is congruent
with the basic premises of the methods that follow Krashens natural order hypothesis, which suggests that
grammar teaching should be replaced by communicative activities that promote subconscious acquisition following
the natural order of L1 learning (Krashen, 1984).
Fabbro (2001) also proposes that when L2 is learned after the sensitive period (described by him as around the
age of 7), declarative memory systems, rather than procedural memory systems are at work especially if the L2 is
learned in a formal setting. This also suggests an earlier start-up for L2 lexicon learning in formal settings as the
most preferred learning for L2 is the one that is more dependent upon the use of procedural memory rather than
declarative memory. This neurolinguistic approach to memory systems in the learning of an L2 is congruent with
the views from L2 teaching methodologists: according to DeKeyser(2007), with practice, declarative knowledge in
L2 takes the form of procedural knowledge.
Another discussion about the neural representation of the acquired L2 vs. L1 comes from Paradis (1989). He
discusses that the language learned in formal contexts should result in a different neural representation of that
language in the brain when compared to the language acquired in a natural environment. Because in the former
conscious processing is involved while in the latter unconscious, automatic processes are involved.
The role of explicit and implicit memory systems in language learning provides interesting information for L2
teaching. In the mother tongue, both implicit and explicit strategies are involved, while in L2 learning in formal
settings only explicit mechanisms function (Fabbro, 2001). It could be suggested that efficient foreign language
methods should focus on mechanisms that guarantee the use of first language learning mechanisms. It means the
students should be encouraged to use implicit strategies for more long-term efficiency of L2 learning. Considering
this neurolinguistic clue, it can be suggested that the use of explicit strategies in EFL will not help students to be
involved in real-life conversations. This is in line with what the history of EFL has presented: there has been a
gradual shift from the emphasis on explicit processing to implicit processing in EFL teaching methods as asserted by
Gasparini (2004). As he discusses, explicit processing in foreign language teaching was abandoned because it did
not allow for intuitive and constructivist approaches (Gasparini, 2004).
As one of the significant figures in neurolinguistics, Paradis (1994) discusses the role of memory systems in
foreign language learning. He asserts that different memory systems are involved in different learning contexts: the
formal learning involves declarative memory systems and the first language, or the language learned in a natural
conversational setting involves procedural memory. He argues that attention focused on the form to be acquired
reduces the efficacy of its acquisition, because the learner will treat it as explicit and will not be able to internalize it
and make it a part of his/her procedural memory. According to Paradis (1994), explicit knowledge which is
processed in the declarative memory system can turn into automatic use and the learners conscious control over his
speaking skills does not necessarily result in fluency in the target language. However, Paradis (1994) discusses that
it would not be sensible to offer that no acquisition can take place in formal settings such as L2 classrooms.
 Aysegl Nergis / Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 15 (2011) 143147 145

According to Paradis (1994) if teachers address their students with the target language as much as possible and if the
students are encouraged to respond in L2, students can acquire implicitly the L2 knowledge that they need for
automatizing in L2conversations. Concerning second language classroom research, Chaudron (1998) also offers a
similar view: in L2 classrooms, learners productivity and their proficiency in L2 is supported by their involvement
in the interactive negotiation of meaning.
The role of declarative/procedural memory systems are also discussed by Ullman (2005a) with similar views as
are found in Paradis (1994). He asserts that the two memory systems could be used in a complementary fashion. The
declarative system can help learning more rapidly, however it will not guarantee long term results in terms of L2
learning. The L2 knowledge given to the students should be practiced efficiently in order to make it internalized by
them and stored in the procedural memory system.
The limbic system is another significant neurological system for L2 learning. First of all, it is responsible for
emotions and motivation and also regulating the speech and communication mechanisms, which signifies its role in
communicative purposes in EFL. According to Paradis (1994), the involvement of the emotional-motivational
components of the limbic system focuses the attention on the message to be understood or communicated and away
from the form and thus facilitate the development of the procedural memory for L2. This has an implication for
efficient communicative L2 teaching. It means that communicative methods used in todays L2 classrooms heavily
depend on the use of the limbic system. Paradis (1994) also has realized this gap in the field and emphasized that the
traditional language teaching methods were not successful in aiding the learner acquire the L2 efficiently because
they did not take into consideration the importance of the involvement of the limbic system that starts with the first
attempt to communicate: the intention to communicate a message. Communicative methods are in line with the
function of the limbic system since they place the learner in situations within the activities and the tasks where they
would wish to participate in and where everything they say is motivated by the desire to communicate (Paradis,
1994, p. 407).
The metalinguistic knowledge acquired in language learning is another important topic discussed by Paradis
(1994). According to Paradis (1994), the high level of education in ones first language determines the extent of the
metalinguistic knowledge one has for that language and if the L2 teaching method is formal, the learner will rely on
metalinguistic knowledge more. However, the extent of metalinguistic knowledge for L2 will not guarantee the
automatic use of that language. It is just available for the controlled and conscious production of the target language
forms; but not useful for communicative purposes much of which is the main goal of the current communicative
methods used in L2 classrooms today (Savignon, 2001).
In terms of the relationship between the Critical Period Hypothesis (CPH) and early L2 instruction, Singleton
(2005) stated that there are different views on the effect of the onset of L2 learning. However he rejects the view that
there is not a certain, solid period that determines the degree of L2 acquisition. Pallier (2007) is another researcher
that focuses on the role of the onset of L2 acquisition. He asserts that the CPH could be a myth because there is
strong evidence that proves some L2 learners (immigrant Korean learners of French) may even lose their knowledge
about the language that they learned in their young years of life if they do not practice it. This has an implication for
the amount and quality of practice done in L2 classrooms. When they are given enough meaningful practice and
high quality input in the classrooms, L2 learners may acquire the L2 in success (Krashen, 1984).
Investigating specific language impairments could also be beneficial for L2 methodologists. Examining the
works of Joanisse & Seidenberg (1998) and Geva (2000), it could be suggested that L2 methodologists can benefit
from the lists of the vocabulary and grammar items that people with specific language impairment (SLI) and
dyslexia cannot achieve to comprehend and produce. This will give the teachers a list of items that should be
focused on in classrooms because they are relatively more significant than others and may cause the greatest
problems while learning an L2.
Goswami (2006) has a lot of interesting arguments in relation to the link between neuroscience and education. In
her article titled Neuroscience and education: from research to practice?, she discusses the myths about brain-
146 Aysegl Nergis / Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 15 (2011) 143147

based learning phenomenon and provides evidence against such programs that claim to make use of it. She asserts
that although the integration of neuroscience into education could be useful for determining the children with
specific learning and language problems, for detecting the brain areas that could be responsible for such processes
like learning, memory and knowledge storage etc., it is not meaningful to make too farfetched connections between
such distinct disciplines like educational sciences and neurology (Goswami, 2006).

3. Conclusion

Neurolinguistics is full of new and interesting research studies on how language is represented in the brain and
how learning actually takes place in a neurological sense. As Coch and Ansari (2009) suggest, neuroscience can
contribute to evidence-based practices in education. In addition, the long history of learning sciences research waits
to be considered together with neuroscientific data in terms of educational significance (Stern, 2005). In order to
achieve this, both neuroscientists and educationalists should have adequate knowledge of neuroscience and
education to be able to make sound decisions about future research in this field (Coch & Ansari, 2009; Goswami,
2006).
But perhaps it will never be possible to offer new L2 teaching methods that are rightfully based on neurological
findings, as neuroscience is perceived to possess a descriptive rather than a prescriptive approach to informing
educators (Christodoulou & Gaab, 2009). Willingham (2009) asserts that such a marriage between the two distinct
fields could be possible if educators do not expect that neuroscience will be prescriptive. Moreover, language
learning is a cognitive and at the same time a social process, in which many different variables are at work (Long,
2009) and this makes a thorough neurological explanation for it very hard.
To state one last comment, it is widely suggested to be cautious while making connections between such distant
topics like language pedagogy and neuroscience (Coch & Ansari, 2009; Goswami, 2006). As there are recent
attempts to claim that this connection could be possible, it is meaningful to suggest that in the future it may be
possible to achieve a completely thorough correspondence between the research findings in such distinct fields of
study. However, a different methodology is needed to handle such a complex issue (De Smedt et al., 2010).
Researchers working on neuroscience and education should come up with a new approach or framework to negotiate
these two fields of research (Ansari & Coch, 2006). Otherwise, as Goswami (2006) says, neurolinguists will not
hear what educators say and educators cannot make sense out of what neurolinguists suggest with their findings.

References

Ansari, D. & Coch, D. (2006). Bridges over troubled waters: education and cognitive neuroscience. TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences, 10 (4), 146-
151.
Blakemore, S.J. (2010). The developing social brain: implications for education. Neuron, 65, 744747.
Burnett, S., Thompson, S., Bird, G., Blakemore, S.J. (2010). Pubertal development of the understanding of social emotions: Implications for
education. Learning and Individual Differences (in press)
Coch, D. & Ansari, D. (2009). Thinking about mechanisms is crucial to connecting neuroscience and education, Cortex, 45 (4), 546 547.
Christodoulou, J.A. & Gaab, N. (2009). Using and misusing neuroscience in education-related research, Cortex, 45 (4), 555 557.
De Smedt, B., Ansari, D., Grabner, R., Hannula, M.M., Schneider, M., Verschaffel, L. (2010) Cognitive neuroscience meets mathematics
education. Educational Research Review, 5, 97105.
DeKeyser, R. (1997). Beyond explicit rule learning: Automatizing second language morphosyntax. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19,
195-221.
Fabbro, F., (2001). The Bilingual Brain: Cerebral Representation of Languages. Brain and Language, 79, 211222.
Gasparini, S. (2004). Implicit versus explicit learning: Some implications for L2 teaching. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 19 (2),
203-219.
Geva, E., (2000). Issues in the assessment of reading disabilities in L2 children. Dyslexia, 6, 13-28.
Goswami, U., (2006). Neuroscience and education: from research to practice? Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 7, 406-413.
Grel, A. (2004). Selectivity in L2-induced L1 attrition: a psycholinguistic account. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 17, 5378.
Joanisse, M.F. & Seidenberg, M.S., (1998). Specific language impairment: a deficit in grammar or a processing? Trends in cognitive sciences, 2
(7), pp. 242-247.
 Aysegl Nergis / Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 15 (2011) 143147 147

Krashen, S.D. (1984). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. New York: Oxford, Pergamon Press.
Long, M.H. (2009). Methodological principles of language teaching. In Long, M.H. & Doughty, C.J. (Eds), The Handbook of language teaching
(pp. 373-395). West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.
Marini, A., Tavano, A., Fabbro, F. (2008). Assessment of linguistic abilities in Italian children with Specific Language Impairment.
Neuropsychologia, 46, 28162823.
Pallier, C. (2007). Critical periods in language acquisition and language attrition. In Barbara Kpke, Monika S. Schmid, Merel Keijzer, and Susan
Dostert, (Eds). Language Attrition: Theoretical perspectives, pp 155-168. John Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Paradis, M., (1989). Bilingual and polyglot aphasia. In Boller, F. & Grafman, J. (Eds), Handbook of neurosychology (vol 2, pp. 117-140).
Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Paradis, M. (1994). Neurolinguistic aspects of implicit and explicit memory: Implications for bilingualism and SLA. In N. Ellis (Ed.), Implicit
and explicit learning of languages (pp. 393-419). London: Academic Press.
Sebastian, C.L., Tan, G.C.Y.; Roiser, J.P., Viding, E., Dumontheil, I., Blakemore, S.J., (2010) Developmental influences on the neural bases of
responses to social rejection:Implications of social neuroscience for education. NeuroImage. (in press)
Singleton, D., (2005). The critical period hypothesis: A coat of many colours. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 43, 269-285.
Stern E. (2005). Pedagogy meets neuroscience, Science, 310: 745.
Ullman, M.T., (2005). A cognitive neuroscience perspective on second language acquisition: The declarative/procedural model. In Sanz, C. (Ed.),
Mind and context in adult second language acquisition: Methods, theory and practice (pp. 141-178). Washington DC: Georgetown
University Press.
Ullman, M.T., Pancheva, R., Love, T., Yee, E., Swinney, D., Hickok, G. (2005). Neural correlates of lexicon and grammar: Evidence from the
production, reading, and judgment of inflection in aphasia. Brain and Language, 93, 185238.
Willingham, D.T. (2009). Three problems in the marriage of neuroscience and education. Cortex 45 (4), 544-545.