Re: Does early speaking lead to fossilized mistakes?
Posted: Tue Apr 18, 2017 10:05 pm
My position on early French immersion in Canada and immersion in general is pretty clear. I'll let parents and history be the judge. I see no shortage of wealthy people lining up to send their children to expensive private international schools. Neither do I see a shortage of less wealthy people in Canada lining up to send their children to free public French immersion schools.
But don't listen to me. Listen to the Canadian Parents for French (CPF) http://cpf.ca/ Whether it's French immersion, a regular French program or attending an all-French school, the fundamental message is that learning a second language (in this case French) is good for you and the earlier the better. Of course there are all sorts of ifs and buts and endless details of scientific research that claim to show that this is a complex subject.
But I'm amazed at how someone who claims to be interested in language learning can squirm and wiggle endlessly trying to prove that immersion at an early age is not a good thing. Of course there are all sorts of circumstances and nuances but the plain truth is that it is best to start learning a language at an early age, and the earlier the better. And it doesn't have to be in school. There can be forms of immersion outside school. Every single perfectly bilingual person I have ever met, seen or heard ever has learned the second language as a youth.
Rich people have always known this. The really rich would have tutors or nannies with foreign languages for their children. Their kids have always attended these international schools or went abroad to perfect their language skills. Being able to speak multiple languages well was a sign of high social class. The graduates of these schools go on to positions of power and prestige in the world with their excellent language skills.
When less wealthy people try to do the same thing in public French immersion programs, all of a sudden people complain about how elitist, divisive and inefficient French immersion is. What is good for the rich is suddenly not so good for the less wealthy
Most parents of course don't believe this hogwash. What they understand is what the rich have always understood. Bilingual education is a good for the brain, the mind, learning and certainly good for a future career. Mind you, implementation may be at times deficient. State French immersion is not the same as attending that posh lycée français at the cost of a new car every year, but the results are not bad.
As for the results of French immersion in terms of this language skills, yes, we have to admit that depending on the duration and form of French immersion here in Canada, the proficiency can be lacking when compared to native speakers. There can be lots of fossilized mistakes or stubborn bad habits in grammar and vocabulary because of interference from the L1. But we also notice excellent pronunciation and ease in communication.
As a teacher I love working with adult graduates of immersion because they have a good foundation of basic skills. They improve very quickly because they already have the basics. It's just a question of reawakening a lot of dormant skills. Those 25 hours of French a week at age 6 twenty years ago have left their mark.
That's the key advantage of early exposure. It provides a foundation that will probably be there forever, just waiting to be called up again. I'm not saying that learning at a later age cannot be just as effective. It's just that I believe it's best to start early.
But don't listen to me. Listen to the Canadian Parents for French (CPF) http://cpf.ca/ Whether it's French immersion, a regular French program or attending an all-French school, the fundamental message is that learning a second language (in this case French) is good for you and the earlier the better. Of course there are all sorts of ifs and buts and endless details of scientific research that claim to show that this is a complex subject.
But I'm amazed at how someone who claims to be interested in language learning can squirm and wiggle endlessly trying to prove that immersion at an early age is not a good thing. Of course there are all sorts of circumstances and nuances but the plain truth is that it is best to start learning a language at an early age, and the earlier the better. And it doesn't have to be in school. There can be forms of immersion outside school. Every single perfectly bilingual person I have ever met, seen or heard ever has learned the second language as a youth.
Rich people have always known this. The really rich would have tutors or nannies with foreign languages for their children. Their kids have always attended these international schools or went abroad to perfect their language skills. Being able to speak multiple languages well was a sign of high social class. The graduates of these schools go on to positions of power and prestige in the world with their excellent language skills.
When less wealthy people try to do the same thing in public French immersion programs, all of a sudden people complain about how elitist, divisive and inefficient French immersion is. What is good for the rich is suddenly not so good for the less wealthy
Most parents of course don't believe this hogwash. What they understand is what the rich have always understood. Bilingual education is a good for the brain, the mind, learning and certainly good for a future career. Mind you, implementation may be at times deficient. State French immersion is not the same as attending that posh lycée français at the cost of a new car every year, but the results are not bad.
As for the results of French immersion in terms of this language skills, yes, we have to admit that depending on the duration and form of French immersion here in Canada, the proficiency can be lacking when compared to native speakers. There can be lots of fossilized mistakes or stubborn bad habits in grammar and vocabulary because of interference from the L1. But we also notice excellent pronunciation and ease in communication.
As a teacher I love working with adult graduates of immersion because they have a good foundation of basic skills. They improve very quickly because they already have the basics. It's just a question of reawakening a lot of dormant skills. Those 25 hours of French a week at age 6 twenty years ago have left their mark.
That's the key advantage of early exposure. It provides a foundation that will probably be there forever, just waiting to be called up again. I'm not saying that learning at a later age cannot be just as effective. It's just that I believe it's best to start early.