Don’t Overthink It: Could Higher Executive Functions Inhibit Foreign Language Ability?

It is well known that children are much better at learning languages than adults. After all, it is exceedingly rare for one to master a language to the extent of one’s native one, thinking and dreaming in one learned later in life. Nelson Mandela famously said, “If you talk to a man in a language he understands, that goes to his head. If you talk to him in his language, that goes to his heart.”

One paper sought to compile research on this very topic, finding many interesting details about bilingualism and brain development (Berken et al., 2017). One such finding is that the first few months are crucial in phoneme (the sounds of a language) acquisition, and that the speaking of various sounds and babbles in a tongue that will grow to be indistinguishable to that of a native speaker solidify as early as one year of age.

The exact reason that humans lose this ability to take on a new language like our native one is unknown, and there are many possible explanations. One may be simple necessity and opportunity, that as infants we both require learning the language around us to communicate basic needs and have little else to do or devote brain power towards. A common theory is that young children’s minds are especially malleable, and that the increased neuroplasticity that comes with youth is why learning languages becomes increasingly difficult as one ages.

A recent study, however, hints at an entirely different conclusion. The University of Liverpool conducted a study that focused on the language ability of non-native speakers, comparing sober participants to those who consumed a low-dose of alcohol (Renner et al., 2017). Surprisingly, despite controlling for a placebo effect and finding no change in self-reported language ability, native speakers of the language in question blindly tended to rate those in the alcohol consuming group with significantly higher conversational scores!

This surely came as a surprise. Alcohol is well-known for inhibiting what are known as ‘executive functions’, things such as memory, attention, comprehension, alertness, and pronunciation. This is why we picture a forgetful, sleepy, inattentive, slurring person when we imagine somebody who has had a lot to drink. While the study was notably a small amount of alcohol- comparable to a pint of beer for an average man- it seems counterintuitive that even slight inhibition of the previously mentioned functions would result in better performance in speaking a foreign language. Many of the things we consider ‘executive functions’ are things we consider key to speaking a learned language. What could be the cause of this finding?

The study admittedly offers that the anxiety suppressing effects of alcohol could be the source of the findings. A small amount of alcohol tends to make most people more social and less nervous, which could have resulted in more casual and natural language. While this is likely partially to blame for the findings, I suggest something else. That the suppression of these executive functions is precisely what allows for better language abilities rather than being a side-effect that is overcome by alcohol’s more social effects.

While it’s true that memory recall and pattern recognition are what comes to mind when we think about a foreign language, it’s important to recognize that it may not be that way for an infant- those most adept at learning languages of all humans (broadly). An infant is not an acute pattern recognizing and alert genius; they wield a still developing brain that even at its best is much less intelligent than a heavily intoxicated adult. The mentioned study implies that partially inhibiting these executive functions allows the human mind to take a step closer to its natural language-learning state; more of a blank canvas than refined machinery.

It’s hard to say what this could mean for the future of language education and instruction if these findings are supported, particularly if the anxiety reducing effects of alcohol can be controlled for. Should students in high-school Spanish take a shot of vodka before their lesson? No, probably not. But it is worth exploring the fact that the logical, pattern based method with which we teach and learn languages is very different from how an infant naturally learns, and that a more immersive, less analytical method may lead to better and faster results. Maybe it’s time we started learning with our hearts instead of our heads. But maybe it also means that shotgunning a White Claw before your next foreign language final isn’t as bad of an idea as it might seem.

References

Berken, J. A., Gracco, V. L., & Klein, D. (2017). Early bilingualism, language attainment, and brain development. Neuropsychologia, 98, 220-227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2016.08.031

Renner, F., Kersbergen, I., Field, M., & Werthmann, J. (2017). Dutch courage? Effects of acute alcohol consumption on self-ratings and observer ratings of foreign language skills. Journal of Psychopharmacology, 32(1), 116-122. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269881117735687

Institutionalized Care and The Need for Change to Foster Care

    Orphaned children are among a group of persons that experience moderate to extreme developmental issues. They never receive a beneficial amount of social interaction to prepare them for the world and many end up relying on the state for funds, housing, insurance, and more because their exposure to economic life is nonexistent and they have only been to know their institutionalized life. Zeanah et al. (2006) went to Bucharest, Romania with the idea of an early-intervention program for institutionalized children up to 30 months of age that had met two criteria: 1. had spent at least half of their life in the institution and 2. passed basic health assessments. The experiment was to demonstrate the effects of institutionalization and foster care on a child's development over time. There were two groups, care as usual (remained institutionalized) and those in foster care. The hypotheses consisted of: 1. The development of children raised by a family would be enhanced compared with that of children raised in institutions; 2. The longer children remained in the institutions the more compromised their development would be; 3. The age at which children are placed into foster care may play a role in their development and may play an important role over time. Using the guidelines for a longitudinal study, the researchers developed the understanding that the effects of foster care were far better than those who remained in an institution. They theorized this as the lack of affection would impede on the cognitive and neural development, as well as early child development.

    Recently a book was published, Young People Leaving State Care in China (Shang & Fisher, 2017) and talks about institutionalization in China and the mechanisms of how it works but mainly about the children that come from these state institutions. It is stated in the book that once children are in an institution the only way to get out is to be adopted or to mature and eventually be set into the world without any knowledge of how the world works. As a result, they face serious challenges "to establishing an independent life, employment, housing and social connections when they enter adulthood" (Shang & Fisher, 2017). There is positive and negative feedback on both types of care, state and foster, and how they affected people interviewed in the book by explaining how the positive and negative interactions made each person feel. The positives of foster care were rooted in the reliability of parents to take care of the children. The positives of state institutions were limited to feeling cared for by those they could not form formal relationships with (i.e. other children, staff, caregivers). The negatives of foster care were the effects of lost affectionate relationships and a sense of misplacement due to foster parents giving more affectionate, warming, and tailored care to their birth children. The negatives of the institutions goes on about emotional support, social support, physical abuse, and more. 

    The underlying argument is that if foster caregivers were trained in programs like in the BEIP, then maybe caregivers would be more willing to take on caring for one or two more children. There is government support when fostering, but many people look at that simply as extra spending money. Foster care is a wonderful opportunity to give a child a semi-normal life to allow them to be socially and emotionally engaged. Without those types of interactions, many will fail in modern society because they will be unable to form different types of relationships whether is is friendship, romantic, or professional. Continuing to push for foster care to eliminate institutional care is not simple, but must be taken seriously around the globe.

References

Shang, X., & Fisher, K. (2017). Young people leaving state care in China. Bristol, UK; Chicago, IL, USA: Bristol University Press. doi:10.2307/j.ctt22p7km9

Zeanah, Charles H., Koga, Sebastian F., Simion, Bogdan, Stanescu, Alin, Tabacaru, Cristian L., Fox, Nathan A., Nelson, Charles A., & BEIP Core Group (2006). Ethical considerations in international research collaboration: The Bucharest early intervention project. Infant Mental Health Journal. DOI: 10.1002/imhj.20107.