Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Professor Jon Andoni Duñabeitia, from the Universidad Nebrija in Madrid, Spain, talks about
inclusive and scientifically validated approaches to language learning.
One could easily draw up an endless list of language learning scenarios between these two extremes – and
cognitive scientists are working hard to uncover the role played by their respective factors. For example, we now
know that:
The acquisition of the mother tongue is different from the acquisition of a non-native language, and the
acquisition of a foreign language different from a non-native language that is contextually present;
The cognitive impact of language learning is different during childhood and during adulthood, and young
people and older adults differ in the way they learn and in the way they should be taught;
A native-like command of a given language at all possible linguistic levels may be a chimera for a non-native
speaker, given the critical and sensitive periods;
The acquisition of a non-native language via naturalistic exposure or immersion yields better results than
its acquisition via a classroom environment;
The acquisition of a second language is typically much harder than the acquisition of a third language;
The different languages share common neural networks in the human brain, while they also
show different brain activation patterns, suggesting a certain degree of language specificity.
But one of the clearest findings in the field of cognitive neuroscience is that there’s a common underlying
consequence to all the possible scenarios: namely, a different brain functioning and neuroarchitectonic
reorganization occurring as a result of language learning. Thus, acquiring a new language changes us both in the
way we behave and in the way we are, even physically at a cerebral level.
Knowing the far-reaching cognitive implications of language learning, many cognitive scientists have been
asking for an act of responsibility by society, and especially by the school system. We are working hand in hand
with all the agents involved, trying to base formal language instruction on scientific findings and to expose
inappropriate approaches. One of the flagships of this revolutionized language instruction is the fight against the
old myth that mixing languages within the same subject could have negative consequences. The one-subject-
one-language rule has governed language instruction for years, but thanks to recent evidence, we now know that
we could be making a huge error by following it, as it doesn’t yield better learning at all, while it clearly penalizes
linguistic inclusion.
Psycholinguistic research, conducted with highly proficient and less proficient bilinguals of different ages,
has recently demonstrated that language switching can lead to even better results than sticking to one of the
languages, and that if we allow bilinguals to freely switch between the languages they know, they will voluntarily
do so. Besides, several studies have confirmed that learning new concepts using multiple vehicular languages does
not result in impoverished knowledge. In fact, there are studies suggesting that language mixing, and especially the
use of the native languages in foreign language classrooms, could have a positive impact on the cognitive well-
being of the students and on the learning process.