Why do we start introducing English so late?

[ChrisB87]

Hey guys,

So, i see a lot of parents bringing their children to the language school and paying 30k for 30 hours of private tuition. They're at least 5 years old, but usually much older. And, of course, they can only get so much from it - nature dictates that.

What i mean by my above statement is, they never can become native speakers - it's not considered possible, by linguists, to acquire a native language this late. After 5 or 6 their ability drops dramatically, and 12 or 13, it falls off the chart completely.

This not to say that a person cannot study enough to become "fluent" or even "nearly native-like". But it's a huge, unnecessary and (often) costly effort.

I understand, this may not be so easy for those who can't afford to pay for tuition and the government might not fund this - but why hasn't there been more of an effort to introduce English from 6 months old? Rather than starting at an age where first language acquisition is virtually over.

I have noticed one language school chain offering this, but no others (to my knowledge). I believe its called "Helen Doran School".

It just seems to make more sense (financially and from a language point of view).

It's not just Thailand, it seems to me that countries always start introducing new languages at a completely futile time. (even countries that are considered to offer good education for free)

I am not expert, but just interested in linguistics.

Does anyone know why this is?

Thanks

Edited August 14, 2013 by ChrisB87

[thaicbr]

because they don't understand.. they think the kids need to get older to learn.. also kids here do learn basic English at kindergarten. Not that it does them a lot of good

[Scott]

Most students will do just fine if they become proficient in the language. They do not need to be encouraged to start school any earlier. People who have a specific reason for wanting native-language or complete bilingual ability may want to consider other options for early learning, but for most the timing of the language learning is satisfactory. There are other problems in the education system that are in more serious need of being addressed, IMO.

[puchooay]

There shouldn't be a need for language schools, full stop.

If schools in general got their fingers out then this need for "special classes" in the evenings and weekends would be negated, that goes for all other subjects too.

Thai teachers and students look at me in total amazement when I tell them that kids in England go "home" at the end of school.

[zeichen]

OP utter hogwash. The actual studies don't show or prove your statements. The one thing that I hate when educators and linguists say this it often helps adults and older learners use it as an excuse for not learning languages. Similar to Left and Right brain research is used for people often to excuse their lack of ability by claiming that they are stronger in the other side of the brain. Or now with Gardner's multiple intelligences we can easily say "Oh I'm a visual learner sorry I don't have to pay attention to that lecture now. The truth is they are great as a crutch if you don't fully read deeper into their studies. We as humans have an amazing ability to bridge gaps between what we are naturally good at and what we need to be. We are not limited by our genes we are able to overcome them.

Now to the main points of your statement.

First of all they can never be native English speakers anyway unless they are raised in an English speaking environment. A child raised by Thai parents that speak only Thai in the household, who send their infant child to study English 1 hour a day 5 days will not have a Native English speaking child. They can become fluent in the language over years and years of study but will always have issues with first language interference and will loose that ability if they stop studying.

However if they send their children to an Immersion school or communicate in English at home that is a different story. Typically though if Thai parents who speak Thai at home, if they live in an English speaking country, their kids will be bilingual and can develop native accents in both languages. It is nearly impossible to ever achieve a native accent in a non English environment.

How languages are learned by Nina Spada shows a very long intensive study of families that have moved to foreign countries and studied their second language acquisition. After the first 6 months the adults had the best improvement of language development. The next 6 months there was a drastic change, the parents actually went to the bottom of the list. One thing they explained was that adults can absorb and cognitively connect the dots a lot better but lack the motivation to become fluent. They quickly learn the language skills in which they need to accomplish their work life, but typically their social circles were not formed with the people who needed to speak a foreign language.

The group that made the most progress over the 2 year study was the teenagers not the children under 5. Most studies that show young learners ability for languages do not penalize for accuracy. They score based on ability to tell stories and continue talking and when something is grammatically inaccurate or irrelevant it is just overlooked in the scoring. The teenagers continued to make progress because not only did they attend school all day, they usually formed social circles where they had to speak the foreign language.

(Collier, 1988; Samway & McKeon, 1999) did another study that had similar results. The younger learners can develop less of an accent but often if the teenager has a rich social environment with children of that foreign language not only will they develop a stronger and more accurate skill set, they will also be more communicative. The older studies often forget that it might appear that children learn or acquire easier but it is also true that they have less language to learn to be considered fluent at that age. A native child of 5-6 years old might only have an active vocabulary of 500 words and a passive of about 1k but by age 13 they need to have over 5k active and 10-20k passive to be at the same level.

FYI Japan does a lot of language classes at 1 year old and not a single one of them by the time they reach 10 is close to a native accent or even fluent by any standard. Just studying a few hours a week is never going to make you a native speaker. There is a lot more to learning and using a language than just studying in a classroom setting. That his why immersion programs and homestays are effective and popular.

Your research is very inaccurate and stagnant. I have heard those statements for years how children are better suited for learning languages but all of the concrete evidence proves otherwise. Its almost like an old wives tale that keeps getting perpetuated and fortunately for adults it is used as an excuse not to learn. The US military and Diplomatic core has very intensive language courses and many of those that complete the courses not only are fluent but often have clean accents.

The only truth is that it is often easier to pick up on accents at a young age because we are still developing our social motor functions not to mention the social psychological aspects of learning a language.

The brain doesn't Crystalize at 13 and most of the research linguists did about this was 40 years ago and people are still beating that drum even though more recent studies show different results. There was a Japanese researcher about 15 years ago that had a method for undoing NLE of accents. Some of it was meditation and hypnosis and a lot of it was motor reflex exercises.

The funny thing with most Linguists is that they are not always multi lingual. They study about languages not study languages.

In short there are so many factors that go into language acquisition and just being able to absorb a language by being around it as Krashen suggests really doesn't always work. There are social, psychological, and physical factors that also influence. Also judging someones knowledge of a language solely on their pronunciation or oral communication ability isn't fare either.

[Scott]

To be fair, the OP has brought up an interesting topic and it's worth discussing.

Zeichen, thanks for the very interesting information.

[Phatcharanan]

Interesting that you mention Stephen Krashen as I studied his theories whilst taking my post-grad in Applied Linguistics.

I think it is quite clear that there is no single theory that is either correct or can be applied to all. Similarly, this also applies to some of the famous educational psychologists such as Dwek, Kolb, Bloom etc. There is no 'single bullet.'

[rijb]

Neurologists, not linguists, study what parts of the brain are involved in language acquisition.

The language learning part of the human brain does not shut down after a certain age. In fact, every age brings its own advantages and disadvantages to language learning (too numerous to mention here).

The bottom line is that adults learn more efficiently. But, children have better phonemic sensitivity, until the age of puberty.

[billd766]

I speak to my 9 year old son in English and his Mum speaks to him in Thai.

He is also in the ELP at school.

My neighbours 2 girls (8 and 5) come in every day and the same thing happens except if they don't understand something my son will tell them what I said in Thai.

After 69 years I can speak native just like a native.

Edited August 16, 2013 by billd766

[thaicbr]

I speak to my 9 year old son in English  and his Mum speaks to him in Thai.

 

He is also in the ELP at school.

 

My neighbours 2 girls (8 and 5) come in every day and the same thing happens except if they don't understand something my son will tell them what I said in Thai.

 

After 69 years I can speak native just like a native.

But. But. native what?????

Sent from my i-mobile i-STYLE Q6

[zeichen]

He was attempting to make a joke saying that it has taken him 60+ years to sound like a native speaker of his native language.

[ChrisB87]

Thanks for all replies so far . Some very interesting opinions. I hope to hear more !

And just to clarify: i am not talking about language learning, but language acquisition.

[Phatcharanan]

Thanks for all replies so far . Some very interesting opinions. I hope to hear more !

And just to clarify: i am not talking about language learning, but language acquisition.

Huh??

In your OP you stated and I quote 'What i mean by my above statement is, they never can become native speakers'

That statement alone implies you are concerned with language learning , not acquisition.

Acquisition simply requires meaningful and understood communication and comprehension.

[ChrisB87]

Yes, but i am suggesting that they should be acquiring English as another first language, rather than trying to learn it as a second, which in my opinion proves difficult, costly and in many cases futile.

Edited August 17, 2013 by ChrisB87

[billd766]

I speak to my 9 year old son in English and his Mum speaks to him in Thai.

He is also in the ELP at school.

My neighbours 2 girls (8 and 5) come in every day and the same thing happens except if they don't understand something my son will tell them what I said in Thai.

After 69 years I can speak native just like a native.

But. But. native what?????

Sent from my i-mobile i-STYLE Q6

Thaicbr spotted the flaw in the native language. I can't speak Urdu or Farsi which is quickly becoming the native language in the Uk.

He was attempting to make a joke saying that it has taken him 60+ years to sound like a native speaker of his native language.

Normally in 60 + years I manage to get about 10 jokes in.

[zeichen]

"Yes, but i am suggesting that they should be acquiring English as another first language, rather than trying to learn it as a second, which in my opinion proves difficult, costly and in many cases futile."

Are you actually suggesting that Thailand become or can become a bilingual nation? frankly impossible.

The only nations that comes close to bilingual are those that have been colonized or have large portions of the population that are native speakers from both desired langauges. Canada comes close but not purely bilingual most are either fluent in French or English. They make a very good attempt though. Singapore and even Malaysia aren't bad either. Phillipines still have a long way to go and their accent is quite difficult for other non native English speakers to understand.

You simply cannot become bilingual just because you want to be. In order for Thailand to be a bilingual (I am not counting the local dialects. Many Thais are bilingual or trilingual if you count those) nation it would have to have a larger percentage of the population already native English speakers. The people would need to be immersed in both languages. Which in short would not ever happen and wouldn't really be good for them.

English isn't so important that everyone needs to be bilingual or have a native speaking accent. For most people basic communication and comprehension is enough. Personally, I think that there is too much emphasis on oral communication and the students are suffering. The old system in Thailand 20-30 years ago pushed comprehension and writing a lot more. In my experience I have found that those people were able to develop the verbal skills easier because they had a strong sense of the language and a great vocabulary. On the other hand those that I have met that study mostly conversation cannot write a simple letter that makes sense. As an academic my bias is always for better writing skills but it is not cool or hip and it is easier to market classes that allow people to make English speaking friends.

The only thing costly or inneffective about learning English as a second language is how they go about doing it. Acquiring additional languages isn't that difficult and a lot easier than forcing an entire country to give up its culture into an English immersion environment.

There are only a few situations where bilingualism is easily attainable.

1. both parents speak one language at home but they live in a country where the desired language is spoken. The children will effectively be bilingual. The younger children may have a cleaner accent but not impossible for the teenagers to also if they are social, and integrate well.

2. parents speak both languages as native speakers. (but parents need to take a stronger role in their children's education)

3. One parent is a native speaker of one language and the other parent is a native speaker of the other desired language. (however one language can often be dominant depending on time spent with the parent, schooling, psychological identity, social influences etc

4. Children are sent to school in an immersion environment where the desired language is only spoken. (problem with this is without enough parental influence and additional effort the first language will not develop further.

There are millions of people that speak English fluently that learned it later in life. Some have accents others do not. I just think overall you have no clue about how languages are learned or even what is important about them.

The funny thing with statements like yours and others that put down the current education system for language development is that you probably only speak your native language.

I so often hear people bad mouth Thais and how many years that they study English, saying that it is sad how much money and time they spend and are not fluent. Yet those doing the complaining are mono lingual.

[ChrisB87]

Thanks for your detailed response.

"Are you actually suggesting that Thailand become or can become a bilingual nation? frankly impossible."

It is actually possible. There have been children acquire 6 native languages. But it's thought that that number doesn't necessarily stop at 6.

"Canada comes close but not purely bilingual most are either fluent in French or English."

So what do Canadians actually speak?

"You simply cannot become bilingual just because you want to be"

If enough input is received (by the child) during the critical period, actually yes.

"and wouldn't really be good for them."

Why not?

"The people would need to be immersed in both languages"

Precisely.

"Personally, I think that there is too much emphasis on oral communication and the students are suffering. The old system in Thailand 20-30 years ago pushed comprehension and writing a lot more."

All my students can write pretty well, but few can string a sentence together.

"Acquiring additional languages isn't that difficult"

Language acquisition is only possible during the critical period (before 12-13, but typically before 5-6 years old). After that - they are learning! not acquiring!

"There are only a few situations where bilingualism is easily attainable."

Learning language (to a fluent level) is more difficult, but i understand there would be difficulty in introducing English early enough for Thais (or other non-native speakers) to acquire it.

"There are millions of people that speak English fluently that learned it later in life"

Few, in reality. (Why not just acquire the language, as a child, in just 5 years or so?)

"I just think overall you have no clue about how languages are learned"

If it is deemed an important language, I think it should be acquired, not learned. (otherwise what's the point in all the hassle for inferior results?)

"The funny thing with statements like yours and others that put down the current education system for language development is that you probably only speak your native language."

True, i wish i had acquired many native languages, but i had little choice since i was a child during the critical period. However, i do try to learn Thai.

"I so often hear people bad mouth Thais and how many years that they study English, saying that it is sad how much money and time they spend and are not fluent."

I am offering constructive criticism and not only to Thais.

Edited August 17, 2013 by ChrisB87

[zeichen]

Perhaps re read your defense and argument. Just stating the opposite of what I say but not offering actually facts to support it like I did, doesn't work.

I give detailed reasons why Thailand will never be bilingual and all you do is say. T

"It is actually possible. "

The only defense you give is some anecdotal evidence that some children have learned up to 6 languages. What does a few isolated cases have to do with an entire nation being able to attain bilingualism in English. Many Thai children speak 2-3 languages already, it is just that in this country we are not exposed to enough people who are native English speakers. Cannot have an immersion style acquisition in a foreign country like Thailand without changing the culture.

I think that you have read a few books on language acquisition and don't fully understand the field in its entirety. A little bit of knowledge is a very dangerous thing. There are so many aspects to developing language and cannot be solved with just acquisition.

Does it really matter if a language is learned or acquired as long as the end result is the same?

"Few, in reality. (Why not just acquire the language, as a child, in just 5 years or so?)"

There are millions of Americans and Canadians including my grandparents that came from Europe with no English ability and over the course of their lives (adults also) became fluent in English some with accents some without.

I have traveled to many countries and have met 100's-1000 of people in each of those countries that "Learned" English later in life and were very fluent and clearly spoken. Some had strong accents but some did not.

You are trying to use individual cases to defend an argument that applies to an entire nation. That is not possible is the point I made.

The issue you also bring up about why not just acquire in 5 years or so. Well in fact I have taken teenagers and adults into intensive language courses and in just 2 years they were fluent. Going from not even knowing the alphabet to communicate and even translate, read national geographic and other scientific based material and be able to summarize and explain what they read. Some of them had strong accents but others did not. Some of it was first language interference, some was physical development. I had strategies and facial exercises for them to do which were effective for those that used them.

So why should I make them wait 5 years. With the right student, motivation, skill sets of the learner, they can attain fluency as adults. But requires effort not this plug and play acquisition style that you are promoting.

The other real issue with your argument is that people lose language ability also. So just plugging a kid in and acquiring input at a young age to development language skills that they may or may not use when they are older isn't practical. Unless the individual is in an environment where the language is used regularly it becomes like a rusty wheel.

[ChrisB87]

You raise some very interesting points. Thank you!