How should we frame language instruction in non-verbal populations?

Are we learning a second language or a foreign language?

The makers of language instruction tools (like Duolingo) tell us that learning a second language can be a fun and exciting experience. It can open up new doors in life and a career, such as allowing you to speak to neighbors from a foreign country or giving you the inside track on a bilingual position in your company. For all its benefits, few neurotypical people ever learn a second language, because truly mastering one can be quite difficult. There are many reasons for this difficulty, but in this article we'll discuss one of the more contentious subjects in language education: the role of a person's native language, which is the home language of the person - or one’s acquired language (L1).

There are various schools of thought as to the best way to learn a second language, and one of the major differences of opinion centers on whether or not the student's native language should be used. The battle between those who support its use and those who oppose it is actually rather fierce. In the following sections, we'll spend a little time breaking down the current landscape and talking about when a student's native language is used extensively, sparingly, or not at all.

The Frequent Native Language Use Camp

Many older language learning systems allow the use of the home language extensively. Indeed, many encourage it, especially those systems which teach grammar first and foremost. It allows for the explanation of complex grammatical concepts, especially ones which don't exist in the learner's native language (such as feminine or masculine words for English speakers) in terms which the student can readily understand.

Proponents of these systems also think learners gain a quicker ability to read and write in their second language when they're taught using their native language. Since the student's education is more focused on grammar and language concepts, proponents claim students grasp the language's inherent structure quicker and are able to effectively read and write in their second language sooner than if they aren't allowed to use their native language.

Furthermore, studies that espouse the use of the native language often encourage the use of translation and claim that frequent translation from a learner's native language to their second language and vice versa helps a learner recognize similar root words and make key connections. This, in turn, leads to a more in-depth investigation of the parts of speech in each language and a better understanding of how each language works. Understanding important parts of speech and root words aids the student later when beginning to speak in their second language.

Remember, however, that translation from one language to another means translating 1:1 - from verbal to verbal. What happens if your L1 isn’t verbal? Where’s the anchor?

The No Native Language Use Camp

In contrast with older systems, more recent language learning systems do not allow students to speak their native language at all. These include so-called immersion systems which, as the name suggests, teach a second language through forcing students to read, learn, and speak in their second language only. In some countries, such as the United States and Canada, entire schools exist where all of the students' work and classroom instruction is done in their second language.

Contrary to claims made by those who encourage the use of native language, proponents of limiting native language use claim students learn to read and write quicker when not allowed to use their native language. This is because forcing a student to do all their work in their second language naturally makes them learn and understand how the new language works in order to complete their work.

According to its proponents, not allowing the student to work at all in their native language allows them to make important cognitive connections in their second language and learn new words by creating word associations between other words and definitions in their new language, rather than relying on translation. This not only increases their vocabulary, but also aids their comfort level in their new language. Additionally, students in language immersion systems often learn to speak their second language before they learn proper grammar, meaning they continue to learn to correct their speech as they go, not always learning why it's correct. This is very similar to how neurotypicals learn their first language.

Opponents of this method point out that working in this way often extinguishes the student’s first language, or at least freezes it in place. Critics point to the Residential Schools in Canada as an example of how badly this method can go for learners and their cultures.

Is There a Middle Ground?

Whilst proponents of teaching a new language using the native language and those who oppose it are the loudest members in this debate, there are many teachers who integrate both approaches into their classroom. Proponents of this approach say that allowing the use of the native language when students are stuck helps relieve the anxiety many students feel when learning a second language. Detractors, however, claim any use of the native language will be used by students as a crutch and impede their learning.

Additionally, some second language teachers, especially at the high school level, aren't completely fluent in their speaking of the second language they teach, even if they completely understand the grammar and working parts of the language. Some of these instructors install systems where the teachers speak in the native tongue so that students completely understand requests, but require students to speak their responses in the second language. This relationship can also be reversed, so the student gets adequate time practicing listening and speaking skills in their second language.

Umm … But …

Let's review what we've covered thus far. There are multiple schools of thought regarding the best way to learn a second language. Each student is different, and the approach that may work for one student may not work for another. One of the most contentious subjects in second language education involves the role of a student's native language, which is the home language of the student. There is a debate between three camps of language teachers:

• Frequent native language use

• No native language use, using immersion systems, which teach a second language through forcing students to read, learn, and speak in their second language only

• Middle ground of occasional native language use

It’s generally agreed upon that the best approach is the one which helps students learn the language as quickly and completely as possible. Systems that focus on allowing students to use their native language usually focus on ensuring a student understands grammar and how a language works on paper, whilst systems that focus on not allowing a student to use their native language often want students to gain a familiarity speaking their second language. Many language teachers, however, prefer the middle ground between these two approaches.

Might There be a Problem?

None of this even considers that a student’s L1 would not be in a verbal space.

To say that B.F. Skinner’s work informs the work in this space would be an understatement. When observing a delay in the expected speech progression, parents / care providers / teachers automatically assume that something must be wrong. Waiting for them are trained “interventionists,” armed to the teeth with “evidence based” therapies. They all know that Skinner proposed that all humans communicated because their communication was strengthened or weakened by the consequences that an audience or listener provided. Consistent with this behavioural paradigm, Skinner did not assign special innate properties to language acquisition for humans. To Skinner, language was an operant or learned behaviour like other behaviours. And, most importantly, there was no such thing as variation in the human species. In this view, the autistic brain is a disordered “typical” brain that can be restored to order with the right conditioning. With this in mind, it’s no wonder that we non-verbal autistics struggle with literacy and comprehension.

Remember also that the design of the system assumes that the home language is shared by the learner and their family. With non-verbal autistics, this may not be the case. Just because verbal language is present around them doesn’t mean that they’re picking it up or prefer to work in that space. It certainly doesn’t mean that they comprehend what they’re hearing to any great extent. Thus, we must ask ourselves, is second language instruction appropriate? Wouldn’t foreign language instruction be a better choice?

We must therefore make a distinction between second-language acquisition and foreign-language learning based on the individual's internal processes of learning and the degree of consciousness brought to the learning task. In a second-language acquisition situation, the language is spoken in the immediate environment of the learner, who has good opportunities to use the language by participating in natural communication situations. In a foreign-language learning situation, the language is not spoken in the learner's immediate environment, or the learner has no access to language as such. The learner has little or no opportunity (or desire) to use the language in natural communication situations. Other, more specific situational distinctions are based on the time spent on language learning, the quality and structure of the input, the teacher's role, lack of teacher, and the kind of skills developed. Individual learner differences contributing to the distinction include motivation, activity / passivity, the experience of "language shock," social and affective factors, age, native language background (or lack thereof), the learning processes used, monitoring, the linguistic results, learning ability, and communicative strategies. Foreign-language teaching gains from an understanding of the role of both individual learner characteristics and situational differences related to the learner’s distinct language learning processes. As such, it’s the more appropriate theoretical construct from which to begin language instruction in autistic spaces. Yet, Skinner’s acolytes continue to drive the narrative.

This debate informed my decision to focus on Teaching English as a Foreign Language (TEFL) when engaged in language instruction. Working in a world where certifications matter, I earned a 150-hour TEFL certification from the University of Toronto’s Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (link). Along the way, I kept thinking, this methodology should be the basis of language instruction for autistic learning spaces. We are, after all, foreigners in most of the spaces in which we inhabit. We will never be native speakers of any verbal language. We will always have to translate the complex contents of our brains into rudimentary language that can, in no way, fully encapsulate the entirety of our experience of this world. Thus, if you’re here looking for advice on working with your non-verbal autistic loved one, the TEFL is probably the best (and most ethical) route.

— December 16, 2023 Note —

Some of the materials herein have made it into my books, No Place for Autism? and Holistic Language Instruction. No Place for Autism was released in February 2023 from Lived Places Publishing and is available at Amazon and other major book retailers worldwide. Holistic Language Instruction will be out in 2024.