Not the normal content for this site, as this is more of a 1st language acquisition issue, but still interesting…

Children are reaching the age of 3 without being able to say a word, according to a survey that also found boys are almost twice as likely to struggle to learn to speak as girls.

The average age for a baby to speak their first word is 10 to 11 months. However, a significant minority (4 per cent) of parents reported that their child said nothing until they were 3.

While this is the extreme minority of children, and even late talkers can “catch up” and become well-adjusted average (or well-above average) children later, it still is well worth pointing out.  All to many parents I’ve seen are much too eager to advocate for their children’s language ability, interpreting grunts and gurgles as words in an attempt to deny any language development delays.  I would plead with parents to be honest in their assessments.  Don’t panic overly if the child is not talking by age 1 — that’s an average, but a child waiting a couple months to utter the first word is not of the ordinary, however if they haven’t learned quite a 50+ words and started making 2-3 word utterances by age 2, seek language development therapy for your children…

2009, and my automated news system is still clogged with articles revolving around the theme of “push children into learning a language younger and younger!”  I’ve written on this a lot, and I won’t rehash all my arguments, but basically it comes down to this: younger is not necessarily better…  Adults, not so surprisingly, have some cognitive advantages over children, and this comes into play in language learning.  All evidence seems to suggest that language learning takes roughly the same amount of time, no matter what age the learner.  The advantage that children have (especially in learning their native language[s]) is this: what else are they doing?  Children have the free time and effort.  That said, the next rule of language learning is this: a couple hours a week is not going to make your child “fluent” in the least.  It typically takes hundreds of hours to develop a language to a reasonable level of proficiency.  This is not to say that classes like those described in the above-linked article are worthless, but rather that language learning is a considerable commitment of time and effort, and must be sustained throughout childhood, at least.  I know all too many parents who send their kids to a year or two of classes, then nothing for years, and they actually get mad when their kids inevitably forget everything about the language…

Last nugget to chew on for those of you thinking that “younger learning” is the name of the game.  Current research (most prominently by Dr. David Birdsong of UT Austin) suggests that the only area of language learning wherein child learners will more typically surpass adult learners is in accent development.  In all other areas — grammar, syntax, etc. — many adult non-native speakers test identically with natives.  While children do seem to acquire native-sounding accents better than adults, one is still faced with the fact that many adults nonetheless acquire very convincing accents, and many children, even immersed in the target language environment, do not.  Obviously, age is not the only factor in the equation.  My own pet theory on this is that language fluency is determined not by age of immersion or age of initial instruction, nor by such nebulous constructs as “talent,” but instead by an intrinsic integrative motivation (literally the desire to be a member of the group that speaks the language) which would naturally lessen with age in most cases (as much of our identity becomes entwined with our local community).  Such would explain both adult and child exceptions to the natural rule.

Pupils in the European Union are learning foreign languages at a younger age, even as young as three, while English is learnt by 90 per cent of all European pupils at some stage of their compulsory education, according to a study by the Eurydice Network.

I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again: an early start is not the “cure-all” for language learning — the effort has to be sustained throughout adolescence (and pretty much throughout life)…  Europeans have always had a bit of an advantage in this regard, given that 1) they can barely drive 5 minutes without encountering a national/linguistic border; and 2) because of the multi-lingual nature of the continent, they have retained the classical definition of education wherein foreign language learning plays a big role…  Despite plaintive pleas from all quarters that we Yanks need to take a note from the Europeans where language learning is concerned, I ask you to take note of the fact that they have the same worries about the up-and-coming generation.  While multilingualism is certainly more wide-spread in Europe than it is in the US (and #1 above is pretty much the reason why — FL classes are infinitely more usable in Europe as travel makes interaction with speakers of the language of study quite doable and likely), there are still plenty of monolinguals.  I’m always amazed by the number of tourists who are duped by the multilingual “show” of the tourist areas, which do make it seem like everyone in the country is conversant in at least one or two other languages, however, if you get outside of highly touristed neighborhoods, you will start to realize that the people who work in the tour hot spots are hired specifically for their language abilities.  Try going literally one block off the Champs Elysess in Paris, and you’ll encounter the other Paris, where finding someone to speak English is a mighty task, indeed…

Although it’s just the fifth week of class, some roll their R’s like pros, and Señora Gueits doesn’t have to utter a word of English. Many of these Seneca Ridge Middle School students have studied Spanish since they were 6 as part of an unusual program in which all children in the Loudoun school system take Spanish classes in grades 1 through 6.

Click and read the link.

Heartwarming, for sure, but it bears mentioning that, contrary to popular opinions starting FL education younger is not a cure-all. Such popular misconceptions have had some disastrous effects in Korea and Taiwan as students immersed in English fall behind in native language literacy education, and their English instruction is not maintained during elementary school, so when they reach junior high, it’s all gone. The keys to successful early learning are 1) not to abandon native language learning in the school setting (bilingual precepts: children will learn the FL better if they learn literacy first in their own language*); and 2) instruction must be continuous throughout childhood (preferably continuing, at least, into the learners’ late teenage years). Happily, this seems to be the case in the story linked above.

*Note: Immersion schools, at first blush, seem to violate this principle as they introduce FL literacy first, but they do introduce the students’ native language literacy in the early grades, and students don’t seem to have much trouble negotiating such changes. There is some literature that suggests that radical changes in script do present problems in immersion school settings, as Chinese/Japanese immersion schools (which, of course, use different writing systems) have a much rockier success record than do, say, French and Spanish immersion schools.

Seriously…

Mix of small-scale violence and language learning = Coolest.child.immersion.program.ever.

Or something like that…

A Spanish immersion program? Why? Kindergartners should be learning to read and write in English, and speak English correctly.

There are too many children who already have a very poor command of the English language. What is the reason for all this Spanish?

Random letter to the editor, with some obvious lack of knowledge of the issue…  I don’t want to make fun of the guy — this is all too common a position, but it sounds to me like the school district hasn’t really laid out its position — and the true benefits of immersion programs — to the community.

*Enormous caveat: I’m not from Masfield, Ohio, nor have I ever even been there, so I don’t know “the facts on the ground,” so to speak.  I’ve come across school districts that have screwed up immersion programs beyond all repair, so I’m not making any assurances that this particular program is gonna be a good one.  I’m just talking about the theory behind immersion ed.

First off, the writer’s point about “global awareness” is on the mark.  That is a bit of a cop-out when teaching Spanish.  Still the reason why Spanish immersion is being offered in lieu of, say, Arabic is two-fold:

1) The teaching resources in Spanish exist and are readily accessible in most communities.  Immersion ed. in most of the country means Spanish-medium teaching for the same reason why it means French in Canada.  It’s simply easy to come up with trained Spanish-fluent teachers here, whereas getting Arabic teachers outside of certain sections of NYC and Michigan would be difficult.

2) It is to cater to the Hispanic community, but not how you mean… (see below)

To understand Immersion education, you have to understand it’s goals and purposes.  Most people grasp the point of English-speaking kids learning another language, but there is also credible research to suggest that these immersion classes will facilitate Spanish-speakers’ transition to English.  Immersion classes don’t exist in an English vacuum.  The usual regiment is to allow kids to respond in whatever language for 1-2years, while the instructor speaks the FL exclusively (bridging meaning through use of illustrations, gestures, etc.).  Usually from 2nd or 3rd grade, English literacy is presented  in an almost foreign language class-like manner.  Interestingly, the kids are taught to read and write first in the FL.  English speaking kids have been learning foreign languages in this way since the ideas inception in the 70’s (in Canada), with few problems.  Usually, the development of metalinguistic awareness by being able to compare the two languages at a structural level actually improves their English literacy.  By the end of 6th grade, children are transitioned back into English-medium classes, with full academic ability in both languages (although most if not all children remain English dominant for life).  In the case of Spanish-speaking children, while it does certainly seem counterintuitive to help them to learn English by putting them in Spanish-speaking classes, there is a lot of theory that suggests that that is exactly how to best help them.  Note: this theory has given birth to “bilingual education” which, in my opinion, is the most open-to-abuse-curriculum ever devised.  One has to correctly distinguish immersion education, which has a credible track record, from bilingual education, which is iffy — depending on whether its administrators and teachers actually understand what the goal is (most notably, “bilingual” teachers have been caught teaching Spanish only — usually because they don’t understand how they’re supposed to transition learners to English).  Research shows that people learn a foreign language more quickly and easily if they are first literate in their native language.  Thus, by giving Spanish speakers the option of learning Spanish literacy before English, they actually can acquire academic English more easily.  They also benefit from being grouped with Anglos in kindergarten in a low stress environment (i.e., they can play with English speakers, but still understand the teacher).  Now, the intelligent reader is going to ask immediately why, if one should learn L1 literacy first, should we subject the English-speaking kids to Spanish in kindergarten.  The answer: if we simply plopped a kid into a kindergarten class in Mexico city, that would be a valid critique, but remember that these immersion teachers are specifically trained to communicate with the English speaking kids, without breaking into English themselves.  Additionally, the teachers are (or should be) completely bilingual, so they can understand and correctly respond to what the children say in whatever language.  It’s the specialized presentation and content that make this type of curriculum a net plus for both student ethnic groups.  If the district has done their homework — and hired good, responsible, bilingual teachers, who are trained in immersion curriculum — then the kids should all be fine…

I’ll buy that it could help….  Music is often a shortcut to learning.  According to family legend, that’s how I learned the alphabet, and was instrumental in my early literacy.  By-and-large, even later in life, most people will memorize things better when information is set to music, so go ahead and buy some foreign language CDs for your kids .

Another day, another bilingual baby school…  (though click the link — this one, at least, has amusing video of the kids speaking.)

We’ve been through this quite a few times…  Yes, kids have some natural advantages in learning language phonology, and they might even have better memories for new vocabulary, so teaching second language early makes some intuitive sense, BUT… they are not the little “language sponges” that they are made out to be.  Kids work hard to master language.  The fact that they are still mastering their parents’ language seems to disguise this, but, other than mastery of phonology, they don’t enjoy any appreciable advantages over older learners.  Still, all in all, I have no objections to parents who use these schools to foster a bilingual environment for their children to learn a second language — as long as the parents realize that the second language input needs to continue through adulthood.  Too many parents think that bilingual preschool is a “magic bullet” that will make a child “fluent” (even though they still speak their first language imperfectly — hmmm), and don’t think to continue the language past kindergarten, and, in effect, end up wasting their money.  This would be a great opportunity as long as your children continue with the language long term; otherwise, don’t waste your $$$.

postnote: I wonder…  One potential limitation to this type of learning: does the fact that the parents don’t necessarily speak/understand the language that the kid is studying effect the child’s ultimate language fluency?  In the video, the mother’s Mandarin (when prompting her daughter to speak for the camera) was… err..  less than great…  Would non-native input affect the child’s pronunciation?  If they get a wide range of native input, evidence has shown that deficiencies in some sources of input make no difference, but if one has limited input (such as only coming from one teacher/parent) would this still hold?  Also, think about the social aspects.  When the child is older, he/she might resist the language if a real connection to his/her life and goals cannot be made.  This is part of why so many second-generation immigrants speak their heritage language poorly — even with parental input in the heritage language.  They simply don’t identify culturally with “the old country” and resist speaking the heritage language back to parents (peer pressure can also influence this — especially when the language is low prestige in the community where the child lives).

Wrapped up in one convenient editorial…

To be frank, it’s a little oversimplified when put as “the sooner second language instruction begins, the more likely it is to be successful.”  While there’s nothing wrong and plenty right with starting early, consistency and quality of instruction/input is much more important long-term than starting early.  Here’s hoping that whatever the Brookline district decides to start, they will keep the resources in place to let students continue learning throughout their elementary/secondary schooling….

As I’ve argued before, kids don’t learn any “faster” than adults do (and in fact, adults are quite a bit faster in the early stages of language development), BUT…  the earlier one starts, the more proficient one can expect to become if FL input remains constant.

 Click to read all about it…