Neurolinguistic Applications to SLA Classroom Instruction: a Review of the Issues with a Focus on Danesi's Bimodality

DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 423 677 FL 025 478

AUTHOR Kim-Rivera, E. G. TITLE Neurolinguistic Applications to SLA Classroom Instruction: A Review of the Issues with a Focus on Danesi's Bimodality. PUB DATE 1998-00-00 NOTE 14p.; For complete volume of working papers, see FL 025 473. PUB TYPE Journal Articles (080) Reports Research (143) JOURNAL CIT Texas Papers in Foreign Language Education; v3 n2 p91-103 Spr 1998 EDRS PRICE MF01/PC01 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS *Brain Hemisphere Functions; *Language Processing; *Linguistic Theory; *Neurolinguistics; Second Language Instruction; Second Language Learning; Second Languages IDENTIFIERS *Bimodal Theory; *Danesi (Marcel)

ABSTRACT Few studies have approached second language teaching from a neurolinguistic perspective. An exception is Marcel Danesi's educational construct of neurological bimodality, an attempt to find a neurological foundation for classroom language instruction. The underlying hypothesis is that there is a natural flow of information processing from the right to the left hemispheres of the brain during language learning; therefore, language instruction should reflect that flow direction by providing concrete forms of instruction at early language learning stages and more formal and abstract instruction at later stages. However, the hypothesis raises questions; for example, the evidence for riaht-hemisphere functions in second language learning is contradictory, yet those functions are an important elemenc in bimodality. In addition, there have been few empirical studies supporting the hypothesis. (Contains 27 references.)(Author/MSE)

******************************************************************************** Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. ******************************************************************************** U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Office of Educational Research and Improvement PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS CENTER (ERIC) BEEN GRANTED BY O This document has been reproduced as received from the person or organization originating it. M. Carpenter O Minor changes have been made to J. Madden improve reproduction quality.

° Points of view or opinions stated in this TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES document do not necessarily represent INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) official OERI position or policy. 1

Neurolinguistic Applications to SLA ClassroomInstruction: 'A Re- t-t-- view of the Issues witha Focus on Danesi's Bimodality kt) E. G. KIM-RIVERA A Few studies have approached second languageteaching from the p er- spective of neurolinguistics. An exception is Danesi'seducational construct called bimodality. Bimodalityis an attempt to provide aneuro- linguistic foundation for language instruction in theclassroom. The underlying hypothesis is that there isa natural flow of information processing from the right to theleft hemisphere of the brain during language learning; therefore, language instructionshouldreflect that flow direction by providing concrete forms ofinstruction at early stages and more formal and abstract instructionsat later stages. This hypothesis, however,raises questions.For example,the evidence for righthemisphere functions in second language acquisition(SLA) is contradictory; yet, those functionsare an importantaspect of bimodality. Moreover,there have been few empirical studies supportingthe hypothesis.

INTRODUCTION Since the efficacy of language teaching methodologycame under fire in the 1970's (Danesi, 1987) there has beena general lack of agreement among researchers on how a second language is best acquired.Perhaps this uncertainty is why a growing number of researchersare looking to neuroscience for an answer to the fundamental question of second language acquisition (SLA).In spite of the growing interest in neuroscience,however, only a few studies of SLA in classroom settings have takena neurolinguistic perspective. In particular, few researchers have applied neurolinguisticdiscoveries to the development of concrete propositions that could guide secondlanguage teachers. A notable exception is Marcel Danesi, who has developedan educational construct for the classroom based on neurolinguistic principles.This construct is called bimodality. This article is a discussion of Danesi's bimodalityand its implications to classroom teaching practices. Asan introduction, however, the article first reviews a selection of studies in neuroscienceover the last fifteen years that seem to have particular relevance to SLA research and that helpdefine the possible role of neurolinguistics in languagepedagogy. Finally, the article takes a special look at Danesi's bimodalityconstruct and its issues. REVIEW OF NEUROLINGUISTIC ISSUES For the last two centuries, neurophysiologists havebelieved, according to clinical data on brain-damaged people, thateach hemisphere of the brain has distinct, specialized functions (Danesi,1987, 1990). It was known, for in 2 92Texas Papers in Foreign Language Education speech impairment known as apha- research in the 1960's and 1970's that sia. Moreover, in 1861, Pierre-Paul challengedthenotionofleft- Broca, in a case study of a patient hemisphere dominance. with a brain lesion, discovered a The following paragraphs connection between speech ability summarize some of the major re- and the lateral left frontal lobe of the search neurolinguistic issues in the brain. In 1874 Carl Wernicke found a literature since the 1980s, with par- site in the left hemisphere related to ticular attention given to those that speech comprehension. These ob- relate to the teaching and learning of servations gave credence to the idea a second language. These issues can that, for controlling language func- be categorized as follows: brain later- tions, the left hemisphere was supe- alization and the organization of rior to the right. More generally, the language functions, age and sex fac- left hemisphere was considered the tors, neuronal involvement in first major,or dominant, halfof the and second language acquisition, lat- brain, probably because society placed eralization versus modularity, and more value on the skillsit con- the critical period and lateralization. trolled, such as mathematics and grammar. The functions of the right Brain Lateralization and Organiza- hemisphere, meanwhile, were con- tion of Language Functions sidered less important. Then, in the A great deal of research has first half of the twentieth century, focused on brain lateralization and neuroscientific studies began to fo- the organization of language func- cus on what has come to be called tions. For example, intheir1981 the "localization" theory, that is, the study, Goldberg and Costa examined belief that specific mental functions evidence for neuroanatomicaldif- are controlled at specific locations in ferences of the cerebral hemispheres the brain. and their possible effects on cogni- More recentyearshave tive processing. They hypothesized shown, however,that the hemi- that the left hemisphere is superior spheres work cooperatively; that is, in using multiple descriptive sys- both sides of the brain are actively tems that are already available in the involved in higher cognitive proc- cognitive faculties, while the right essing. In the 1960s, for example, hemisphere plays an important role Roger Sperry and his associates (see in processing materials for which Danesi, 1990), after a series of ex- there are no pre-existing descriptive periments onsplit-brainpatients systems. According to this postula- (individualswhosebrainhemi- tion, control of the requisite cogni- spheres were separated by surgical tive functions shifts from the right section of the corpus callosum), pre- to the left hemisphere during proc- sented evidence that the activities of essing. Thus, different hemispheres the two hemispheres were comple- are involved in different stages of mentary and operated as a unit dur- cognitive processing, so that neither inghighercognitiveprocessing, hemisphere has exclusivecontrol most noticeably in language process- over particular cognitive tasks. ing. Their findings led to a spate of Neurolinguistics and SLA:Danesi's Bimodality 93

In the early 1970s, neuroscien- ever, general agreement thatthe tists started to discuss the possibility right hemisphere is important for of the involvementof the right processing word meaning. hemisphere in language, and in the Danesi concludes that there is early 1980s the notion that the RH no clear evidence thattheright plays an important role in process- hemisphere is involved in SLA in ing new stimuli became a workable any distinct manner and that cau- hypothesis (Danesi, 1994). Albert and tion must be exercised when formu- Obler observed in 1978 that language lating models of SLA based on right- organization is more bilateral in bi- hemisphere involvement at differ- lingual children than in monolin- ent acquisition stages and applying gual children, and that the RH is such modelsto second language crucial in SLA. Other researchers, teaching. such as Arbib, Caplan, and Marshall Furthermore,Paradis(1990) (1982) and Segalowitz (1983), con- argued that the right hemisphere cluded that the right hemisphere is might actually interfere with the ac- involved in the processing of pro- quisition of native-like proficiency, sodic, figurative language, and ver- since the greater the amount of pro- bal humor, while theleft hemi- ficiency achieved, the more asym- sphere is engaged in processing dis- metrical are the results. Early lan- crete components of language. The guage development entails bilateral right hemisphere is responsible for involvement, but later the less effi- synthesizing these components into cient systems of the right hemi- meaningful discourse. sphere drop out of language process- In 1977, Hamers and Lambert ing. Paradis suggested, therefore, that argued that the role of the RH may the early use of the left hemisphere be more active in adults than in would improvetheefficiencyof children. In addition, Galloway and SLA. In addition, he advised lan- Krashen (1980), among others, put guage teachers to use caution when forward a "stage hypothesis"that applying "hypotheticaland often postulated the dominance of the quite controversial" (p. 582) neuro- right hemisphere in initial stages of psychologicalconstructstotheir SLA and the dominance of the left pedagogy. hemisphere in later stages. In another study of lateraliza- The most recent research in tion, Anderson, Plunkett, and the involvement of the right hemi- Hammond (1985) observed that the sphere in language processing is in- left hemisphere was responsible for conclusive and ambiguous.It has essential language functions such as shown, for example, that the two phonology, syntax, and semantics. hemispheres actually share the traits Patients whose righthemisphere normally assigned to themindi- was damaged had difficulty compre- vidually; that is, the left hemisphere hending a sentence in a larger con- is engaged in "holistic, parallel proc- text and registering inferences. An- essing" and the right hemisphere in derson et al. showed clear evidence "analytical, serial processing" that the right hemisphere supports (Danesi, 1994, p. 220). There is, how- intonation, musical abilities, evalua-

4 - 94Texas Papers in Foreign Language Education tion of the emotional tone of speech, and have rich contexts" (p. 22). In and an appreciation of humor. that way, the teacher can strengthen Anderson et al. further sug- involvementof theright hemi- gested that both hemispheres may be sphere. engaged in processing verbal data; that is, the left hemisphere is in- Neuronal Involvement in First and volved in analyzing the meaning, Second Language Acquisition while the right hemisphere places Jacobs (1988) discusses neuro- meaning in context. In addition, the biological evidence that learning a left hemisphere is receptive to de- first language is different from learn- tails, while the RH is responsive to ing a second language. Primary lan- general patterns. The hemispheres guage acquisition (PLA) is concur- are different not because they process rent with the development of the different types of stimuli, but be- nervous system; it is dependent on cause they process the same infor- and accountablefor maturational mation in different ways. neuronalchanges. Whensecond languageisacquired,itmust be Age and Sex Factors merged into a neuronal structure Concerning age of acquisition, alreadyestablishedby Universal Anderson et al. (1985) suggested that Grammar (UG) and PLA interaction. second language learningrequires Since the brain is not able to repro- different strategies of processing at duce neurons after birth, the integra- different stages. When the learner is tion entails changing the existing young,left hemispherestrategies substrate as well as using the same have a tendency to dominate, but and/or different structures. As the later, due to decreased plasticity and primarylanguageiscontinually advanced paralinguistic skills, right used and polished, it becomes more hemisphere strategies are preferred. automatic and requires smaller areas On the other hand, Anderson of the brain, therefore freeing corti- et al. concluded that there was n o cal areas for SLA. This view suggests supportingevidencethatgreater that the earlier second language ac- right hemisphere involvement quisition begins, the greater is the takes place in SLA due to age and advantage of brain plasticity. In addi- sex. However, adolescent learners tion, the second language appears to used more processing resources in be more widely represented in the theirfirstand second languages, brain than is the primary language, maybe because they were less fluent so there is a suggestion that people and exerted greater effort in general who are bilateral can acquire an ex- language learning. Females, moreo- ceptional level of SLA. ver, showed more responsiveness i n Thus, from Jacobs' point of their right hemispheres during lan- view, PLA and SLA takeplace guage processing. throughquantitatively different The authors concluded that neurobiological mechanisms. Nev- the second language teacher should ertheless, it is possible that the sec- provide "naturalistic, conversational ond language learner can achieve settings that are highly redundant native-like competence, because dif- Neurolinguistics and SLA:Danesi's Bimodality95 ferent neural organizations can pro- and unconscious processes. This no- duce similar behaviors. Since an ex- tion suggests that the teacher pro- isting functionalsubstrate inthe vide various activitiesanalysis, in- adult needs only to be adjusted, tuitive insight, work, and playin rather than newly developed, re- order to give a balance and variety of duced plasticity may not be as diffi- the mental processes. cult an obstacle to SLA as is often be- Modularityismuch more lieved. important than laterality, according Accordingly, fossilization to theseauthors. The brain has need not be permanent, because all hemisphericspecialization, but its environmental factors can influence pedagogical implications are rather the neural substrate. insignificant. Languagelearning should provide abundant, diverse Even though the adult brain activities, so that individualscan cannot undergotheradical choose the types of processes that changesthatdevelopthe suit them. This approach may en- brain, the adult brain certainly courage those who normally rely on remainsplastic,capableof one type of thinking pattern to try adapting extant substrate to different modalities. new challenges such as the Munsell et al. adopt Gardner's learning of a second language. (1983, 1985)six types of intelligence: [p. 327] linguistic, musical, lo gical- mathematical,spatial,kinesthetic, As Jacob points out, by age five the and personal. To accommodate these child has been actively involved in intelligences,theteachershould PLA for about9,100hours, which is provide a variety of activities. much more than the average second Memory, however, remains a language learners would spend on puzzle. The brain has many different their language learning tasks. types of memory in numerous locations of the cortex. In addition, one's Lateralization versus Modularity memory seems to consolidate while In another approach, Mun- one sleeps. Perhaps more dreamable sell, Rauen, and Kinjo(1988)viewed materials should be made available the brain as highly modular; that is, to language learners. it has a great many independent, specialized modules working rather Neurolinguistic Accounts of Bilin- loosely together, and some of these gualism modules are specific to language ac- Grosjean(1989)discusses ho- quisition. The language teacher can listic/bilingual views of bilingual- facilitate a learner's success by pro- ism. In the holistic view, bilingual viding instructions that target the ability is considered as an integrated specific language-specific modules. whole, not as the simple sum of two According to Munsell et al., monolingual abilities. Bilinguals use conscious processes cannot be iso- their two languagesfordifferent lated from unconscious ones. There purposes in different environments is a continuum between conscious and with different targets. Fluency in

6 96Texas Papers in Foreign Language Education

one language relies on the needs systems. Danesi argued that there created by the environment,and was no evidence that different cere- since the needs of the two languages bral systems exist for PLA and SLA are different, bilinguals do not de- before or after the critical period. velop equal fluency in both lan- Currently,neuroscientistswidely guages. By examining the various sharethe Paradis-Perecman view speech modes of the bilingual and that bilinguals have the same con- identifying "deficits" in the modes, it ceptual systemsas- monolinguals, may be possible to gain a better un- but that they have two independent derstanding of bilingual aphasia and semantic systems. Thus, the issue of the neurolinguistics of bilingualism. reorganization of brain structure be- In 1990, Paradis argued that cause of language learning after the research comparing unilinguals and PLA is inconclusive. bilingualsreported no significant Lenneberg's critical period hy- differencesinlateralization,and pothesis remains inconclusive.In those differences that did exist were 1988, Scovel conducted comprehen- contradictory. Paradis went on to sive research on the hypothesis and suggest that neuropsychologists concluded that there was no clear should redirect theirattentionto evidence that biological restrictions more productive research. Not only exist in language acquisition, except did he doubt the argument that the for the acquisition of pronunciation. right hemisphereisinvolvedin More significantare psychological both languages of bilinguals, he also aspects such as motivation and cog- contended that the current specula- nitive style. Another view is that of tions were based on unreliable re- Se linger (1978) and Walsh and Diller search and that there was no clinical (1981), who suggested the existence evidence that the use of the right of various critical periods for differ- hemisphere was more dominant in ent subsystems of language. Finally, bilinguals than in unilinguals. the theory of Universal Grammar does not acknowledge the possibility The Critical Period and Lateraliza- that SLA will ever reach the level of tion PLA. Danesi, however, believes that Danesi (1994) examined pri- this UG view, which assumes that mary versus secondary language ac- adults have only limited quisition,thecriticalperiodhy- "accessibility" to language univer- pothesis, and the role of the right sals, is too narrow, because the adult hemisphere. It is his contention that learner has other resources besides the significant neuroscientific study biology,suchasexperienceand of SLA began in the 1970s when training. KrashenreevaluatedLenneberg's clinical data (Krashen, 1973) and ob- BIMODALITY served that PLA took place before According to Danesi and Mol- age six. Moreover, Danesi disagreed lica (1988), bimodality is an educa- with Lamendella (1977), who argued tionalconstructthatprovidesa that PLA and SLA are dichotomous: theoretical foundationfor second they use different neurofunctional language instructions in the class- ;--- Neurolinguistics and SLA:Danesi's Bimodality97

room. It posits that in language ac- of language learning. Since the right quisition "thereis a natural flow hemisphereisbetter equipped to from the synthetic and contextualiz- perform these tasks, teaching should ing functionsof theright hemi- reflect this fact by supplying concrete sphere to the analytical and formal- forms of instruction in the initial izing functions of the left one" (p. stages of learning. 77) and both hemispheres play piv- otalrolesinsuccessful language Modal focusing: The principle of learning. modal focusing means that, once the Danesi(1987)adoptedEd- new concept is processed in the R- wards' terminology, L-Mode and R- Mode, the learning process should Mode, to refer to modalities of the shift to the L-Mode for analysis and hemispheres. The L-Mode features organization. include "most speech functions, de- ciphering meaning, verbal memory, Creativity: Creativity pertains to the intellectualtasks,abstacting,and ability of the learner to utilize lan- analytical, linear thinking," and R- guage increativeand expressive mode features are "understanding ways. figurative language and visual rela- tions,spatialmemory,intuitive Contextualization: When the learn- tasks, free thinking, and relational, ing task is L-Mode, supporting con- multiple, and synthetic thinking" (p. texts should be provided in a process 380). The two hemispheres process calledcontextualization. Among language input as a unit and are contextualization techniques are the thus complementary: the left hemi- use of open dialogues,authentic sphere enables us to analyze indi- texts, andrealia.Throughthese vidualconcepts, whiletheright techniques grammar can be taught hemisphere allows us to synthesize in context. informationintodiscourse. Ana- tomically proven is that the right Personalization: Personalization ac- hemisphere is actively involved in tivities, such as role-playing and di- initial learning tasks, and this fact ary-keeping, engage the student in suggests that the right hemisphere is "interactional" tasks that utilizea more adept at processing new mate- right-hemisphere function and pro- rial. The left hemisphere, on the vide context. other hand, depends on previously processed information. These principles highlight the As for its classroom implica- factthatbimodalityisnota tions, bimodality suggests fivein- "method," but a teaching construct. structional principles: modal direc- Inhisreviewof early language tionality, modal focusing, creativity, teachingmethods,Danesi(1988) contextualization, and personaliza- surveyedfrom the perspective of tion, as follows: bimodalitythe failures of various language teaching methods and the Modal directionality:Modal direc- subsequentabandonmentofthe tionality is related to the initial tasks method notion inthe 1960s and 98Texas Papers in Foreign Language Education

1970s. All of the early methods relied jectswere first-yearstudents en- on inductive and deductive proc- rolled in a beginning-Italian course esses:the grammar-translation ap- for nonnative speakers at the Uni- proach in the nineteenth century, versity of Toronto. The LM group the direct method from the second was provided with materials that fo- half of the nineteenth century to the cused on formalistic techniques such end of World War I, the reading as the use of rules and mechanical method of the 1920s and 1930s, and drills, while the RM group was the audiolingual method up to the givenmaterialsthat emphasized late 1960s. Consequently, the meth- communicative tasks.The BM odsfocusedonleft-hemisphere group was supplied with new mate- functions. Because they were uni- rial presented in the R-Mode, and modal, Danesi's concept of bimodal- the students were allowed to con- ity offers an neurological explana- tribute "creative input" by using dis- tion for their failures. course techniques; in this way their More recent methods have backgrounds and interests were re- fared littlebetter in Danesi's view. flected in classroom practices. The cognitive teaching method in When the students' overall the late 1960s and early 1970s at- achievement was compared, the BM tempted to revivedeductive lan- group showed proficiency across the guage teaching, but, as an L-Mode- skills tested. Their performance was focused approach, it was also uni- equal to the LM group in L-Mode modal and thereforeshort-lived. skills (a fill-in-the-blank section of a Then, in the 1970s, the concept of two-hour test) and the RM group in communicative competence re- R-Mode skills (a dialogue-expectancy placed the method notion, but it too section), but the BM group per- was limited in that it had the oppo- formed better than the other two site tendency of utilizingthe R- groups both on the global proficiency Mode whiledisregardingtheL- (a doze section) and on creative Mode functions.Finally,inthe components (a 150-word composi- 1980's, there were attempts to coor- tion). dinatethegrammatical(L-Mode) Danesi (1991) reports on a fol- and communicative (R-Mode) ap- low-up study performed one year proaches, and Danesi predicted that after the pilot study. Since in his pi- this integrated approach would re- lot study Danesi had a problem in ceive the focus in the following dec- classifying teaching techniques into ade. R-Mode or L-Mode without a neu- In 1988, Danesi and Mollica roscientific basis, he used Lateral Eye conducted a pilot study on bimodal- Movement (LEM) to validate the ity. An experimentalgroup was modal categories used in the pilot givenbimodalinstructions(BM study. In most right-handed people, group) and two control groups were when the left-hemispheric functions giveninstructionswith L-Mode- areactivated,theireyes move dominant techniques (LM group) slightly to the right, while right- and R-Mode-dominant techniques hemisphericfunctionscausethe (RM group), respectively. The sub- eyes to move leftward. Three sub- 9 Neurolinguistics and SLA:Danesi's Bimodality99 jects were given six ten-minute les- 3."In proficiency-orientedme- sons for three days, and at the end of thodsthereis a concern for each session, while the subjects were the developmentof linguistic thinking about the lesson, their eye accuracy fromthe beginning movements were recorded with a of instruction" (p. 48). video camera. The results allowed Proficiency-orientedinstruc- Danesi to validate the modal catego- tion monitorsthelearner's ries of the pilot study as neuroscien- linguistic output and provides tific terms. necessaryfeedback.Inthis Inanotherstudy,Pa Hotta way, the left hemisphere is ac- (1993) examined, from the perspec- tivated while right-hem- tive of bimodality, the five working isphericactivitiesare being hypotheses for proficiency-oriented performed. instruction developed by Omaggio (1986) as follows: 4. "Proficiency-orientedmeth- odologies respond to the affec- 1."Opportunitiesmust be pro- tive needs of students as well vided for students to practice as totheircognitiveneeds" using language in a range of (p. 52). contexts likelyto be encoun- The implication of this state- tered in the target culture" (p. ment is that language teach- 44). ing involves the whole brain. As noted before, contextualization is certainly an impor- 5. "Proficiency-orientedmeth- tant part of Danesi's bimodal odologies promote cultural concept of instruction and one understanding andprepare of his pedagogical principles. students to live more harmo- niously in the target-language 2."Opportunities should be community" (p. 53). provided for students to prac- Bothculturalunder- tice carrying outa range of standing and harmonious liv- functionslikelytobe neces- inginvolve bothhemi- sary in dealing with others in spheres. The left hemisphere the target culture" (p. 48). processesculturalinforma- Performing tasks in real-life tion, but involvement of the orsimulatedcontextsin- right hemisphere is also re- volves the right hemisphere quired because the data can be functions,whiletheleft fully understood only ina hemisphereisengagedin context evolving from one's processingthegrammatical experiences. structures necessary to carry out the tasks. This involve- Thus,Omaggio'sprinciples mentof both hemispheres represent a close parallel to Danesi's characterizes bimodal instruc- bimodality. tion.

1 0 100 Texas Papers in Foreign Language Education

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS predominantly by bilinguals than by In a rare attempt to apply re- unilinguals and in fact doubts that search data in neuroscience to the the right hemisphere plays any sig- field of second language teaching, nificant role in language learning. Danesi proposed bimodalityas a That author further suggests that the theoreticalbasisforinstructional right hemisphere may actually ob- practices in the classroom. Bimodal- struct acquisition of native-like flu- ity is based on the neurobiological ency. Inhis1994 reviewpaper, observationthat theright hemi- Danesi agrees with Paradis' view sphere is anatomically disposed to that there is no clear evidence for process new stimuli more efficiently the participation of the right hemi- than the left. The reason for this dif- sphere in the organization of lan- ference is that the right hemisphere guage in SLA. Danesi acknowledges has greater interregional connectiv- that any attempt to interpret techni- ity in the cortex, while the left hemi- cal neuroscientific findings into in- sphere has a sequential neural struc- structionallyfeasibleconceptsis ture. The left hemisphere, therefore, risky and must be done "cautiously better at processing information for and judiciously" (p. 221). Perhaps the which pre-existing data is available. contradictory evidence and Danesi's Bimodality postulates that there is a dilemma are best reflected in Mun- flow -in cognitive processing during sell, Rauen, and Kinjo's observation language acquisition from "the in- (1988): "The brainisexceedingly tuitive, synthetic, and contextualiz- complex and easily leads to categori- ing functions" of the right hemi- cal generalizations on the basis of sphere to "the analytical and formal- limited evidence. No one knows izing functions" of the left hemi- enough in our opinion to offer a sphere (Danesi, 1987, p. 380), and neurolinguisticapproachtolan- therefore second language teaching guage learning or to any type of should reflect that flow. learning" (p. 261). Thebimodalityhypothesis Another issueconcerning raises certain unresolved issues. Al- Danesi's bimodality is the lack of though the right hemisphere is con- empirical studies. As previously dis- sidered to play an important role in cussed, Danesi and Mollica(1987) secondlanguagelearning, and conducted a pilot study on bimodal- Danesi's bimodality is based on such ity as a hypothesis, and Danesi (1988) data, the evidence for the role of the was a follow-up study; the LEM right hemisphere in SLA is never- method in the follow-up study has thelessinconsistent.Danesiand too many constraints to be consid- Mollica (1988) admit that the evi- ered a valid method for an experi- dence for the importance of the right mental study. Both studies, moreo- hemisphere in the early stages of ver, used small groups of subjects, so second language acquisition is con- that their outcomes are statistically tradictory. insignificant. To establish bimodality Moreover, Paradis (1990) ar- as a practical concept, additional em- gues that there is no evidence that pirical studies must be performed the right hemisphere is used more with different types of subjects, ma-

1 1 Neurolinguistics and SLA:Danesi's Bimodality101 terials, and instructor styles in dif- that individual learners should be ferent classroom settings. Only when able to choose the types of learning a consistent pattern of significant re- processes that suit them, in which sults is available can bimodality be case a diversity of instructional prac- considered worthy as a theoretical tices becomes even more important. basis for instructional practice. Third, there must be provi- The final issue is that Danesi's sion in instruction for L-Mode learn- bimodality hypothesis has possibly ing. Recently, there has been heavy been the only concrete proposal for emphasis on communicative com- second language teaching from the petence in SLA, which exercises the perspective of neuroscience. Conse- right hemisphere. As stated above, quently, there have been few argu- however, the bimodality construct ments for or against it from other suggests that learners shift to the L- SLA researchers. Thus, the validity Mode learning after the initial proc- of the hypothesis requires additional essing stages. For that reason, a vi- research and the support of appro- able teaching approach still requires priate neuroscientific data. techniques such as dictation, reading, writing, and examinationof IMPLICATIONS FOR TEACHING grammar. If we do away with all If bimodality is established as forms of pattern practice from the a valid, workable concept, its impli- classroom, the left, or verbal, hemi- cations for second language teaching sphere will be deprived of the oppor- would be extensive. First, language tunity to analyze and organize the teaching should reflect the natural language data processed by the initial right-to-left flow from concrete to R-Mode functions. more formal forms of instruction. The R-Mode operates better in initial-orientation tasks or until suffi- REFERENCE cient sensory information has been Albert, M., & Obler, L.K. (1978). The absorbed. After the right hemisphere bilingual brain. New York: Aca- has processed the new stimuli, the demic. left hemisphere takes over the proc- Anderson, S., Phmkett, R., & Ham- essing. Therefore, instructions mond, E. (1985). Age of second should start with concrete and sen- language acquisitionand hemi- sorial presentation techniques and spheric asymmetry-evidence then should shift to formal, me- fromevokedpotentials. Pieter- chanical instructional procedures. maritzburg, South Africa: Uni- Second, a variety of activities versity of Natal. in classroom should be emphasized. Arbib, M., Caplan, D., & Marshall, Bimodality suggests that the modali- J.C. (eds.) (1982). Neural models ties of both hemispheres are essen- of language processes. New York: tial to the classroom situation. Con- Academic. sequently, the teacher should select a Danesi, M. (1987). Practical applica- rich diversity of activities that con- tions of current brain research to sistently stimulate the two learning the teaching of Italian. Italica, 64 modes. Munsell et al. (1988) noted (3), 377-392. 12 102 Texas Papers in Foreign Language Education

Danesi, M. (1988). Neurological bi- Hamers, J., & Lambert, W. (1977). modality and theoriesof lan- Visual field and cerebral hemi- guage teaching. Studies in Second spheric preferences in bilinguals. Language Acquisition, 10, 13-31. InS.Segalowitz & F.Gruber Danesi, M., & Mollica, A.(1988). (Eds.),Language development From right to left: A bimodal per- and neurological theoriesof lan- spectiveof languageteaching. guages (pp. 57-62). New York: Canadian Modern Language Re- Academic. view, 45 (1), 76-90. Jacobs, B. (1988). Neurobiological dif- Danesi, M. (1990). Retrospective re- ferentiation of primary and sec- view article: The contribution of ondary language acquisition. neurolinguistics to second and Studies in Second Language Ac- foreign language theory and prac- quisition, 10, 303-337. tice. System, 18 (3), 373-378. Krashen,S.(1973).Lateralization, Danesi,M. (1991).Neurological language learning, and the criti- learning flow and second lan- cal period: Some mew evidence. guage teaching: Some evidence Language Learning, 23 63-74. onthebimodalityconstruct. Lamendella, J. (1977). General prin- RassegnaItalianadi Linguistica ciples of neurofunctional organi- Applicata, 23 (3), 19-29. zation and their manifestation in Danesi, M. (1994). The neuroscien- primary and non-primary acqui- tific perspective in second lan- sition.LanguageLearning,27, guage acquisitionresearch: A 155-196. critical synopsis. IRAL, 32 (3), 201- Munsell, P., Rauen, M., & Kinjo, M. 228. (1988). Language learning and the Galloway, L., & Krashen, S. (1980). brain: A comprehensive survey Cerebral organizationinbilin- of recent conclusions. Language gualism and second language. In Learning, 38 (2), 261-278. R. Scarcella & S. Krashen (Eds.). Obler,L.(1983).Knowledgein Research in second language ac- neurolinguistics: The case of bil- quisition(pp.74-80).Rowley: ingualism. Language Learning, 33 Mass.: Newbury House. (3), 159-191. Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind. Omaggio, A. (1986) Teachinglan- New York: Basic Books. guage in context. Boston: Heinle Gardner, H. (1985). The mind's new & Heinle. science. New York: Basic Books. Pallotta, L. (1993). The bimodal as- Goldberg,E., & Costa,L.(1981). pect of proficiency-orientedin- Hemisphere differencesinthe struction. Foreign Language An- acquisition and use of descriptive nals, 26 (4), 429-434. systems. Brain and Language, 14, Paradis, M. (1990). Language laterali- 144-173. zation in bilinguals: Enough al- Grosjean, F. (1989). Neurolinguists, ready! Brain and Language,39, beware! The bilingual is not two 576-586. monolingualsinoneperson. Scovel, T. (1988) A time to speak: A Brain and Language, 36, 3-15. psycholinguistic inquiry into the

1 3 Neurolinguistics and SLA:Danesi's Bimodality103

critical period for juman speech. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House. Segalowitz, S. (ed.) (1983) Language functions and brain organization. New York: Academic. Se linger, H. (1978). Implications of a multiple critical periods hypothesis for second language learning. In W. Ritchie (Ed.), Second lan- guageacquisitionresearch(pp. 21-35). New York: Academic. Walsh,T., &Diller,K.(1981). Neurolinguistic considerations on the optimum age for second language learning. In K. Diller (Ed.),Universals in language learning aptitude (pp.34-45) Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.

1 4 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Office of Education *al Resbarch and Improvement (OERI) Educational Resourcee Information Center (ERIC) (ERIC( F oc.s cry3

NOTICE

REPRODUCTION BASIS

This document is covered by a signed "Reproduction Release (Blanket)" form (on file within the ERIC system), encompassing all or classes of documents trom its source organization and, tuerefore, does not require a "Specific Document" Release faun.

This document is Federally-funded, or carries its own permission to reproduce, or is otherwise in the public domain and, therefore, may be reproduced by ERIC without a signed Reproduction Release form (either "Specific Document" or "Blanket").