Reply #66: I don't agree with the view.

[Igel]

I just state it because it's gaining popularity and because it's an idea worth exploring.

"Krashen" is the best I can do for a link, since most of his work is on dead tree. Stephen Krashen is the big proponent of the view. USC faculty. I think he's emeritus. Ardent liberal for, oh, 4 decades or so, maybe longer. He'd shit a brick if he heard you call him either a gym teacher or a Republican. He argues against the usual idea of a "critical period", ~12-13 years of age, at which language learning suddenly becomes harder.

"Inhibition" isn't shyness. It's just that: inhibition. Kids make tons of mistakes, and don't mind. Adults mind, and so they're inhibited from practicing a non-native language. The argument is that if you don't mind making mistakes, have a reasonable motivation to learn a language, and have proper exposure to it, a 30-year-old should learn just as well as a 3-year-old. Like I said, I don't buy it, but it's apparently caught on in some language-education circles.

As for fixing the problem, it can't be done. Pick a typical city elementary school with 15-30 languages spoken by immigrants. I'd hate to have that many bilingual teachers in an elementary school; I'd also hate to have to bus the kids from all over a city to yield critical mass.

ESL is peripheral to what I've studied. I do know that most ESL degree programs produce fairly language-neutral teachers: lots of ESL classes are mixed language. It probably takes a bit longer than targeting the teaching to users of a specific language, and makes no effort to produce "balanced bilinguals" or bilinguals of any kind.