1

Y

EAR

T

WO

Second Language Acquisition

A

CADEMIC

Y

EAR

2011-2012

#16: Neurolinguistic factors

1. Hemispheric dominance

Brain dominance theory has been advanced on the basis of evidence from

research studies indicating that individuals use different parts of the brain to

approach different types of information. Whereas both sides of the brain are

involved in information processing, most people have a preference for one or the

other hemisphere and are accordingly believed to be left-brain dominant or right-

brain dominant. Such brain specialization (or hemispheric dominance) is the effect

of the lateralization of cognitive functions during the process of maturation. Brain

hemisphere information processing styles can be summarized as follows (Bielska

2006: 57):

A

L

EFT

-B

RAIN

D

OMINANT

I

NDIVIDUAL

A

R

IGHT

-B

RAIN

D

OMINANT

I

NDIVIDUAL

focuses on component parts; detects discrete features

focuses on wholes; organizes component parts into a whole

analytical; prefers step-by-step and part-by-part processing

relational; looks for patterns and construction

linear; processes input sequentially

global; integrates input simultaneously

abstract; uses a small part of information to represent the

whole

concrete; relates to things in their current state

logical; draws conclusions based on reasons and facts

intuitive; bases on hunches, feelings or visual images

temporal; sequences one thing after another

spatial; sees where things are in relation to other things

verbal; processes speech using words to name, describe and

define

non-verbal; relies on visual-spatial orientation

learns from rules, exemplification, and trial and error

does not benefit from specific rule formation or error

correction

oriented towards musical notation

oriented towards musical melody and lyrics

ignores emotional cues or makes inappropriate responses

recognizes and interprets emotional cues

In terms of pedagogical implications, the above preferences reveal that right-

brain learners are probably poorly served by analytical instruction. By the same

token, learners with a dominant left-brain hemisphere information processing

style may not benefit from the use of right-brain mode teaching techniques

(Arrowsmith Young & Danesi 2001).

2. Handedness: dexterity vs. sinistrality

Neurologists have determined that in nearly all right-handed individuals most

language functions are located in the left hemisphere, while in the left-handed

population that proportion accounts for only about two-thirds of the cases

(Bielska 2006: 58). Furthermore, according to Arrowsmith Young & Danesi (2001),

hemispheric style correlates with gender.

2

Studies reported in Andreou

et al. (2005: 429-430; e.g. Lamn, 1997; Lamn &

Epstein, 1999) indicate inferior achievements of left-handers in foreign language

performance. Left-handers apparently have less capacity for the developing of

adequate phonological skills needed for reaching high levels of proficiency in L2.

Furthermore, left-handedness seems to affect SLA more than sex since studies

have shown that in comparison with right-handers of both sexes, left-handers of

both sexes are overrepresented in the lowest level L2 classes while being

underrepresented in the higher level L2 classes (Lamn & Epstein 1999).

Andreou

et al. (2005: 431) also report on the results of a questionnaire survey

which comprised items pertaining to hand preference (

dexterity, i.e. right-

handedness, or

sinistrality , i.e. left-handedness) in writing, drawing, throwing a

ball, use of scissors, toothbrush, knife (without fork), spoon, broom (upper hand),

striking a match and opening a jar or a box. It appears that handedness seems to

play no major role in second language acquisition. However, a particular language

learning talent can be an innate, inherited trait, associated with characteristics

belonging to the so-called Geschwind cluster, in which left-handedness coincides

with twinning and having allergies in childhood, among other factors (Larsen-

Freeman 2001: 14).

3. Modality

There are essentially three modality preferences, indicative not only of various

systems to experience outside reality but also of individual learner differences -

visual, auditory and kinaesthetic ("action"). These correspond to general

predispositions to use different sensual approaches to learning (Skehan 1998:

267). According to a research study conducted by Reid (1987) on the preferred

input channel, 40 per cent of learners appear to prefer visual input, 30 per cent

auditory input, and 30 per cent kinaesthetic input (major preferences only). She

also suggests that modality preferences may be fairly fixed in individuals, which

might also reflect more general processing preferences.

By and large, learners with visual modality preference naturally like reading,

studying graphic information, writing and drawing, and they are generally better

stimulated by colour than sound. On the other hand, because information is

better understood and remembered when it is being read, processing auditory

input can be difficult, while extensive listening can easily induce impatience.

Typically, such learners will take detailed notes in class and follow the instructor

with their eyes. Additionally, their oral output is usually kept short or best

avoided, if possible.

3

In contrast, learners with auditory modality preference easily take in information

which they hear. Consequently, they are not terrified of listening activities, though

they might find reading and writing tasks somewhat more challenging. Such

learners also make good participants of role plays, dialogues or class discussions,

and are good at story telling and presenting prepared talks. Whereas oral work is

their obvious strength, written tests are not.

Needless to say, auditory learners are

easily stimulated by music.

Finally, learners with kinaesthetic modality preference learn best when they are

being engaged in hands-on, physical activities or experiments. In other words,

they need to involve sight and hearing as well as action in order to learn. Besides,

because they are tactile learners, they like to touch objects and use hands in the

process of learning. Objects are also among their typical learning tools and

memory aids, while their oral output is characterized by active gesticulation. On

the other hand, sitting still in the classroom may be a real challenge and extended

concentration quite problematic.

4. Neurolinguistic Programming (NLP)

The primary representational systems with which individuals experience the world

can be subsumed under the acronym VAKOG. Besides Visual, Auditory and

Kinaesthetic modalities, it also includes Olfactory (smell) and Gustatory (taste)

(Revell & Norman, 1997: 31). To be sure, Harmer (2001) writes that the role that

the last two may potentially play in language learning or teaching has not as yet

been accounted for, but - sensibly - one should not expect a lot.

The perception of the world through the five senses is the basis for

Neurolinguistic Programming (NLP), which is apparently concerned with the ways

in which one finds out about the rules that people use to succeed in different

fields and then help other individuals to succeed as well. According to O’Connor &

Seymour (1993: 23), the

neuro part of the term stands for behaviour which results

from the neurological processes of seeing, hearing, touching, smelling and

tasting,

linguistic shows that people use language to arrange thoughts and

patterns of behaviour in order to communicate with other people, whereas

programming describes the ways individuals choose to organize concepts and

actions undertaken to pursue specific goals. The authors in question underline

that NLP is a method to discover one's natural abilities as well as a practical way

to achieve what one wants to accomplish (O’Connor & Seymour 1993: 22).

4

A major pedagogical implication of modality preferences and NLP is that teacher

trainers need to raise prospective language instructors' awareness of pupils'

different learning styles. In order to meet various learner needs, teachers must

organize a whole array of activities, appealing to different modalities. Teeler

(2000: 60f.), for example, suggests that when introduced to the Internet as a

language learning tool kinaesthetic learners behave differently from visual

learners. The latter need some demonstration of what to do before starting the

task, whereas the former simply get on and do it.

5. Learning style

The concept of learning or cognitive styles refers to the characteristic ways in

which individuals orientate to problem-solving. Generally speaking, learning

styles refer to consistent and rather enduring tendencies within an individual.

Thus, according to a traditional definition, the term learning style denotes "the

characteristic cognitive, affective and physiological behaviours that serve as

relatively stable indicators of how learners perceive, interact with and respond to

the learning environment" (Keefe, 1979). The most important taxonomies are

summarized below:

 Field dependence/independence (FD vs. FI)

A field-dependent learning style is one in which a learner tends to look at the

whole of a learning task which contains many items. Such a learner has difficulty

studying a particular item when it occurs within a "field" of other items. A field

independent learning style, in contrast, is one in which a learner is able to identify

or focus on particular items and is not distracted by other items in the

background or context. In Witkin

et al.'s words,

In a field-dependent mode of perceiving, perception is strongly dominated by the overall

organization of the surrounding field, and parts of the field are experienced as 'fused'. In a

field-independent mode of perceiving, parts of the field are experienced as discrete from

organized ground (...) 'field dependent’ and ‘field independent', like the designations 'tall'

and 'short' are relative (Witkin

et al. 1971:4).

According to Brown (2007: 106), FD can be defined as

the tendency to be

"dependent" on the total field "so that the parts embedded within the field are not

easily perceived, though that total field is perceived more clearly as a unified

whole". In other words, one is able to see the whole picture, the general

configuration of a problem or idea. On the other hand, FI describes

the ability to

recognize a particular item in the group of many distracting items. That is why, in

5

order to investigate subjects' perception of a "field", researchers have devised

various tests, of which the most widely used one is the space-orientation test

called GEFT (

Group Embedded Figures Test),

requiring the subjects to locate a

simple geometrical figure within a more complex design and thus extrapolating

from visual-spatial abilities.

Both FD and FI have their strengths and weaknesses. For example, FI enhances

concentrating on an activity or distinguishing parts from the whole, but when

excessive, it may cause one to perceive only the small items and prevent one from

noticing their relation to the whole. Where the relationship between FD/FI

cognitive styles and L2 learning is concerned, one hypothesis that has been

investigated is whereas FI learners are good at deductive, analytical tasks and

paying attention to details, doing better on measures of formal language learning

(e.g., discrete point tests), FD learners like inductive lessons and focus on

communication, learning successfully in informal, naturalistic language learning

environments, as they tend to socialize and empathize more (Abraham & Vann

1987). Yet according to Hansen (1984), FI learners also do better on integrative

tests and tests of communicative competence, designed to favour FD learners.

Recapitulating, both kinds may profit from different types of learning situation.

 Category width

The concept of category width accounts for the distinction between two types of

learners – broad categorizers

and narrow categorizers. The former accept a wide

range of items as belonging to one category, risking the inclusion of items that

might not fit it, and so they tend to overgeneralize - thus, for example, applying

a restricted language rule to all verb forms. In contrast, the latter tend to exclude

items from categories, even when they may fit them. As claimed by Stern (1983:

374), they "limit the rule to a specific context in which it was encountered".

Where pedagogical implications of category width are concerned, the most

successful learners seem to be the ones in between the two extremes - neither

narrow, nor broad categorizers. As stated by Stern, "the good language learner is

reasonably precise in the application of rules and yet prepared to take risks in

order to test the limits of a rule" (ibid.).

 Reflectivity/impulsivity

Cognitive style may also distinguish between reflectivity

and impulsivity. If

treated as a dichotomy rather than a continuum, this distinction perceives

language learners as making either slower (reflective) decisions or spontaneous

(impulsive) guesses. Accordingly, reflective learners consider a problem carefully

6

and extensively, whereas impulsive, intuitive learners tend to "gamble" before

arriving at the solution to a given problem. They can answer promptly, with little

concern for accuracy. To be sure, as indicated by Jamieson (1994: 120f.),

reflective learners tend to make fewer errors than impulsive students, but they

may require more time to find the right answer.

 Learner style

Rather than elaborate on learning or cognitive styles, Willing (1987) has put forth

the concept of learner styles. These are:

LEARNER STYLE

MAIN CHARACTERISTICS

Converger

solitary, avoiding groups; independent and sure of his own abilities; analytic; imposing his own structures on

learning

Conformist

emphasising learning about language over learning to use it; dependent on those in authority; happy to work in

a non-communicative classroom, doing what he is told; a classroom of conformists prefers to see well-

organised teachers

Concrete

like a conformist, but also enjoying social aspects of learning; profiting from direct experience; interested in

language use and language as communication rather than language as a system; enjoying games and group

work

Communicative

language use orientated; comfortable out of class, showing confidence and willingness to take risks; much more

interested in social interaction with other speakers of the language than in analysis of how L2 works; perfectly

happy to operate without the guidance of the teacher

 Other relevant but partly overlapping dichotomies

focusers - concentrating on one feature at a time, in a step-

by-step process

vs.

scanners - dealing with several features at the same time

and allowing their ideas to crystallize slowly

serialists - operating with simple hypotheses (consisting of a

simple proposition)

vs.

holists - operating with complex hypotheses (involving

multiple propositions)

part learners - trying to remember something by separating

it into immediate constituents

vs.

global learners - trying to remember something as a

whole

analytic learners - i.e. rule-formers; taking L2 word for

word; more accurate but less fluent

vs.

gestalt learners - i.e. data-gatherers; more fluent but less

accurate

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY

Abraham, R. & Vann, R. 1987. "Strategies of two language learners: A case study". In Wenden, A. &

Rubin, J. (Eds.),

Learner Strategies in Language Learning: Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Andreou, G., Vlachos, F. & Andreou, E. 2005. "Affecting factors in second language learning".

Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 34/5: 429-438.

Arrowsmith Young, B. & Danesi, M. 2001.

Studying How the Brain Learns. Are There Any Useful

Implications for Instruction? Toronto: University of Toronto.

Bielska, J. 2006.

Between Psychology and Foreign Language Learning. Katowice: Wydawnictwo

Uniwersytetu Śląskiego.

Brown, H. D. 2007.

Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. Fourth Edition. Englewood

Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

7

Deacon, T. 1997.

The Symbolic Species. London: Penguin.

Field, J. 2003.

Psycholinguistics. A Resource Book for Students. London: Routledge.

Fromkin, V. et al. 2011.

An Introduction to Language. 9th Edition. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace

College Publishers.

Geschwind, N. 1979. "Specialization of the human brain".

Scientific American 241/3: 180-201.

Gordon, H. W. & Lee, P. A. 1986. "A relationship between gonadotropins and visuospatial

function".

Neuropsychologia, 24/7: 563–576.

Hansen, L. 1984. "Field dependence-independence and language testing: Evidence from six Pacific

island cultures".

TESOL Quarterly 18: 311-324.

Harmer, J. 2001.

The Practice of English Language Teaching. Third Edition. Harlow: Longman.

Hatch, E. M. 1983.

Psycholinguistics. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Jamieson, J. 1994. "The cognitive styles of reflection/impulsivity and field

independence/dependence and ESL success". In Brown, H. D. & Gonzo, S. (Eds.),

Readings

on Second Language Acquisition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents. 119-137.

Keefe, J. 1979. "Learning style: An overview". In Keefe, J. (ed.)

Student Learning Styles: Diagnosing

and Describing Programs. Reston, VA: National Secondary School Principals.

Lamn, O. 1997. "Sinistrality and developmental reading difficulties". In J. Shimron (ed.)

Studies in

the Psychology of Language. Jerusalem: Magnes. 228–247.

Lamn, O. & Epstein, R. 1999. "Left handedness and achievements in foreign language studies".

Brain and Language 70: 504–517.

Larsen-Freeman, D. 2001. "Individual cognitive/affective learner contributions and differential

success in second language acquisition". In Breen, M. P. (ed.)

Learner Contributions to

Language Learning. New Directions in Research. Harlow: Longman. 12-24.

Miller, G. A. 1981.

Language and Speech. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman & Co.

Nowicka, A. & Fersten, E. 2001. "Sex-related differences in interhemispheric transmission time in

the human brain".

Neuroreport 12/18: 4171–4175.

O’Connor, J. & Seymour, J. 1993.

Introducing Neuro-Linguistic Programming: Psychological Skills

for Understanding and Influencing People. Thorsons Publishers.

Reid, J. 1987. "Learning style preferences of ESL students".

TESOL Quarterly 21: 87-111.

Reid, J. M. (Ed.), 1998.

Understanding Learning Styles in the Second Language Classroom. Upple

Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.

Revell, J. & Norman, S. 1997.

In Your Hands: NLP in ELT. Saffire Press.

Schumann, J. H. 2001. "Brain". In Duranti, A. (ed.)

Key Terms in Language and Culture. Oxford:

Blackwell. 15-18.

Skehan, P. 1998.

A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Stern, H. H. 1983.

Fundamental Concepts of Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Teeler, D. 2000.

How to Use the Internet in ELT. Pearson Education.

Willing, K. 1987.

Learning Styles and Adult Migrant Education. Adelaide: National Curriculum

Resource Centre.

Witkin, H., Oltman, O., Raskin, E. & Karp, S. 1971.

A Manual for the Embedded Figures Test. Palo

Alto, CA: Consulting Psychology Press.