A critical period for second language acquisition: Evidence from 2/3 million English speakers

[galaxyrocker]

As for "remarkable revival", I refer readers to this excellent Wikipedia article on the status of the Irish language.


Need I mention that on 13 June 2005, Irish was made an official language of the European Union. If that isn't a sign of revival, what is?

Lipservice to the "first official language" of an EU country? Also, if you'll notice, it's not a full working language of the EU, and even it's current status kept getting pushed back until just a few years ago. Besides, official status means nothing if nobody in the government uses it and people can't interact with the government in the language. Go try talking to a Garda in Irish...Even in the Gaeltacht, they're likely to bring you in for questioning because they can't understand it. And good luck trying to use it in the court systems!

What this means of course is that the language itself is changing as the sociology of its speakers is changing. Is there more influence of English? Of course. Is bilingualism in an urban environment becoming the new dominant norm? Probably. Is there now a kind of continuum of Irish from the traditional to the urban dialect of new generations ? I would think so.

No, the language isn't changing. Gaeltacht speakers, traditional speakers, are following the same traditions as ever, though admittedly they're getting weaker. What is changing is a bunch of people learning it. Incorrectly, with incorrect idiom and incorrect grammar. What's being created isn't Irish, but a pidgin-language, a possible creole. Which, if you had paid attention to anything I've said, you'd know the actual people who grew up speaking the language can't understand.

Some people see these changes as signs of the decline of the Irish language. The fact that the urban speakers may have difficulty conversing with elders from remote rural areas is taken as proof that the Irish language has gone to the dogs. I disagree.

Except it's not just the "elders from remote rural areas" they can't communicate with! It's literally native speakers of all ages from the areas where the language is actually spoken as a daily language. That's like saying I speak good French, despite nobody in France being able to understand me! That's not good French and it's not good Irish. At this point, how obtuse do you have to be to keep ignoring that point.

If the situation of the Irish language is so dire as we are told here, why don't they just get rid of the whole thing and make English the sole official language? Just think of the many advantages.

Because, honestly, the Irish language that is supposedly the 'first official language' is the only thing distinguishing them from Britain. And that means more than you might think, even if nobody actually speaks the 'first official language', except, in your opinion, 'elders from remote rural areas'. It's an identity thing, even when people don't speak it.

But, seriously, did you read anything in the last reply I sent? It truly seems like you're being purposely obtuse about the whole situation.

Either way, I clearly failed in my goal to stay out of it. Maybe this next time will be better.

[Saim]

Starting with the first one, it seems to me quite natural that the abundance of jobs now and in the future requiring fluent Irish is a powerful incentive for parents to send their children to the Gaelscoil.

You're again starting with the conclusion that immersion learning is good under all circumstances.

Need I mention that on 13 June 2005, Irish was made an official language of the European Union. If that isn't a sign of revival, what is?

No, having EU documents no-one reads translated into the language is not a sign of its vitality. That's not how anyone measures endangerment. It could be a secondary symptom of how much prestige a language has, but not of its actual health.

I would take the status of Catalan, not an EU language, over Irish any day.

Is there now a kind of continuum of Irish from the traditional to the urban dialect of new generations ? I would think so.

You might think so, but can you demonstrate it? Everything that has been shared on this topic so far would indicate that they're two independent codes used by communities that are largely isolated from each other.

In fact you admit as much here:

The fact that the urban speakers may have difficulty conversing with elders from remote rural areas is taken as proof that the Irish language has gone to the dogs.

How is it a "continuum" if there is limited mutual intelligibility between the two forms?

no language activists to deal with

Changing language policy would not mean language activists magically disappear. This isn't how policy, language ideologies or social dynamics work.

[s_allard]

If you say that your B2 Irish sounds better than that of 99% of graduates of the Gaelscoils, then I have to say I'm impressed.

As I've tried to say multiple times, it's nothing to be impressed by. Why? Because Gaelscoils generally promote absolutely abysmal standards of "Irish." Which kids quickly lose once they leave school. It's not just magically that exposure as a kid is better. Good exposure as a kid is likely better, I'll concede, but bad exposure to non-native models of speech isn't going to help you with the language, and might actually make it harder to acquire a high level as an adult due to all the fossilized mistakes and other cognitive issues - "Well, obviously what I was taught/used was good Irish, so therefore I speak good Irish and it's the native speakers who are wrong!". This attitude is, sadly, quite common in Ireland, and you currently even have sociolinguists who are sadly promoting "New Speakers" as being as legitimate, if not more so, than the natives; it's a huge issue in the preservation of the language and it goes back to the immersion schools and other schools teaching bad Irish.

I now want to return to this hoary question of the quality of the language of students graduating from the non-optimal immersion settings to be found in the Gaelscoil in Ireland, French immersion in Canada, English-Spanish bilingual schools in Mexico, etc. Let me first point out that the two most vociferous opponents of immersion education in this thread are a non-native speaker of Irish who passed a B2 exam in Irish - congratulations, I've been there for German - and who claims to speak better Irish than 99% of graduates of the Gaelscoil and a person who learned Gaelic at the age of 25 and also claims to speak better Gaelic than (all?) the graduates of the Gaelic-medium education program in Scotland

We have read here that the graduates of these immersion programs end up speaking a so-called pidgin-like inferior - or abysmal - version of the target language. Moreover, the students will acquire many fossilized mistakes and other unspecified cognitive issues that will prevent them from ever acquiring the language properly. I'll try to calmly and civilly say what I think about these ideas. And I apologize for often using the Canadian example that has been around for 55 years and that I know quite well.

First of all, let's keep in mind that the immersion approach must be compared to the more common approach of teaching the target language as a subject for a couple of hours a week. Or even no foreign language instruction at all if it is not compulsory. Canadian French immersion came into existence because of the dismal results of traditional French instruction in the English-language schools in the French-speaking province of Quebec.

The problem of course was that French was taught as subject like all the others and for an hour or two a week. The end result: not dismal but no French proficiency at all. The solution was a simple but revolutionary idea for the public school system: starting at the earliest possible age, make French the medium of instruction. And the rest is history.

So, before we compare the Irish of Gaelscoil graduates to that of native Irish speakers, we should compare their Irish to that of children who, I assume, have done a couple of hours of Irish a week or perhaps no Irish. Who speaks better Irish? We can quibble about the quality of the Irish spoken but I think we can say that Gaelscoil Irish is better than no Irish at all. Some parents, of course, figured this out immediately and have been clamouring for more immersion education because they see the results first-hand.

When I visited northern Mexico in 2018 I was astounded to see the number of private (and expensive) colegios bilingües in Spanish and English. In fact, I couldn't find one private school that wasn't bilingual but I'm sure they exist. After all, there must be parents who do not want their children to learn English.

How bad or good is the French, the Irish, the Gaelic, the English, etc. of these immersion graduates? Do the children end up speaking poorly - let's say pidgin-like? Do they develop such bad linguistic habits - fossilized mistakes - that they will never be able to learn the language properly? Maybe there is some form of brain damage that creates "cognitive issues"?

In the Canadian setting these questions have been answered. I apologize for the following long quote but it says everything:

A report on the state of FSL education in Canada, recently released by CPF, tackles—among other issues—the long-debated question of immersion students’ level of French-language proficiency. While some have criticized the quality of FI students’ pronunciation and grammar, CPF’s guest commentary authors, Joseph Dicks and Paula Kristmanson remind us that FSL learners need not match the proficiency of young Francophones in order to achieve bilingualism:

From this native-speaker perspective, it could be argued that thousands of fluently bilingual adults in the world are unsuccessful. Many speak a second, third or more languages very well but with an accent that is not native-like. Immersion students are not and never will be “young Francophones” or older Francophones for that matter! They are nonFrancophones who are learning to speak the French language at a level that is quite impressive, albeit imperfect.

While the authors agree that FI programs could be better, with new research helping to inform teaching methods that can make that happen, students of Canada’s renowned FI programs achieve “a level of proficiency that is (and should be) the envy of many.”

So speaking French with an accent and a few grammatical errors (and, dare I say it, Franglais peppering it a bit) doesn’t mean that proficiency hasn’t been achieved. And yes, FI programs in Canada do indeed provide the bilingual advantage. That’s why they’re a worthwhile investment.
https://rvf.ca/blogue/en/2018/05/09/are-canadas-french-immersion-programs-succeeding/
I want to add that I'm not suggesting that the sociolinguistic situation of Ireland and Canada are the same. There are for example major issues of variation and standardization of spoken Irish that we don't have in Canadian French.

I should also point out that the Canadian French immersion system has been heavily criticized not for the quality of the language of its graduates but for being elitist and catering to ambitious parents who see all the advantages of immersion or bilingual education. It's like going to a private bilingual school for free.

From my perspective, the real effectiveness of early immersion is the solid foundation that it gives for higher levels of proficiency. This is very striking in terms of phonology and fluidity. Any issues of so-called fossilized mistakes will be quickly taken care of with a year or two of university-level instruction where the students are forced to write and speak the standard language.

I can't for the life of me understand this rage against bilingual immersion education in, of all places, a forum of language learners. Do some people really believe that children should not be exposed to other languages even if the conditions are not ideal? Instead of heaping scorn on immersion, we should be discussing how it could be improved, as I have outlined in an earlier post.

[Cainntear]

I'll try to calmly and civilly say what I think about these ideas.

You've already failed, as you opened with ad hominem attacks, and ad hominem is not civil.

I can't for the life of me understand this rage against bilingual immersion education in, of all places, a forum of language learners.

If you were genuinely willing to debate civilly and listen to what people actually say, you would understand it. You might not agree with it, but you would understand it.

Instead of heaping scorn on immersion, we should be discussing how it could be improved, as I have outlined in an earlier post.

You haven't left space for discussion, because no sooner has anyone said anything substantial as you've dismissed or misrepresented it. If you want a discussion, you should start by listening to what people say, and stop accusing people of "ranting", "raging", "heaping scorn", promoting "stupidity" etc etc. You are continuing to address everyone who disagrees with you in a singular and most infuriatingly rude manner, then acting all wounded when we take offense.

[iguanamon]

One of the reasons I don't post much on the ladinokomunita forum is because I am a non-native speaker of Ladino/Djudeo-espanyol... and, I'm not even Jewish. I do read it often and have posted on rare occasions. One of the things I notice is that we second language speakers of Ladino are just not as authentic as the native-speakers are over there. It's obvious even if I can't describe it exactly. You just know when you read the messages. People can be taught the language; how to read Rashi script; how to read and write Solitreo script but having a real, honest to the original, language come out will never be possible. If there was an immersion school created for Ladino, it would have to be staffed by those who are non-native speakers and the resulting language learned and spoken by the students would be only an approximation of the original. It could be a pretty good approximation but it still would not be equivalent to the original.

Over the years, I have read the postings about Irish and Scots Gaelic here on the forum. The languages are in a somewhat similar endangered situation to Ladino. I think it's logical to assume that the language medium schools would have a similar result. Other languages are also in this same situation, for example, Breton; Hawaiian; Native American and Australian indigenous languages. Hebrew was "revived" (perhaps a better description would be "created") but it is not the Biblical Hebrew of the Jews pre-diaspora. It is a language which must be studied separately.

French is a living language, with native-speakers located all over the world. It is not endangered. If non-French-speaking Canadians come out of French immersion schools with faults in French syntax; grammar; pronunciation they will be able to model native-speakers and correct those errors, they can easily visit Quebec and speak with natives for practice and improvement. They can even attend university in Quebec in French.

Comparison of French immersion schools in Canada with Gaelic medium schools in Ireland and Scotland is not a fair comparison. One is a living, thriving language in no danger whatsoever of extinction and the others are endangered languages, barely hanging on with few native-speakers left. I wonder how many native-speakers design the curriculum in Scotland and Ireland? How many native Irish/Scots Gaelic teachers are there in these schools? My guess would be, not the majority and, sadly, probably not many at all.

It's one thing to have an immersion school for a living, thriving language with many native-speakers and another thing entirely to have an immersion school for an endangered language with few native-speakers- probably none of them monolingual. It's apples and oranges to discuss French and Gaelic languages. Both are languages that are not English, yes, but that's as far as the comparison goes.

So, regardless of the ability students in Ireland and Scotland gain in the language medium schools, given the limitations described, its GIGO- garbage in, garbage out. Students can only model what they've been taught to model. Their accent may be a perfect model of what they hear in school, but is that model native or second language? The remnant native-speaking population is not there to provide language practice and correct vocabulary and grammar for these students. Their language is a new language. They are neo-speakers. Do they live their lives in the language? Do they work, shop, interact with business and government in the language?

Try as I do in all my languages, I will never have the abilities of a native-speaker. I live in an English-speaking Territory and work primarily in English. I have an imperfect vocabulary and accent in my languages, but this doesn't stop me from trying to be the best I can given my limitations. I don't want to be taken for a native-speaker. To be perceived in this way would deny me my pride in being recognized as a foreigner who has worked hard to learn another language.

Anyway this discussion about whether immersion schools are good or bad means nothing practically to us here on the forum. It is a moot point. French-immersion schools in Canada could be a good thing but they have little in common with Irish-immersion schools or other threatened languages. None of us, as far as I know, have the ability to time travel to take advantage of an immersion school even if it is the greatest thing since sliced bread.

I am disappointed to see the rancor in this thread. It is indeed possible to disagree without being disagreeable. Perhaps it is becoming a lost art in these hyper-polarized times in which we live.

[Iversen]

And so Iguanamon got the last word in this interminable discussion which didn't lead anywhere. I have closed it.