Page:Adapting and Writing Language Lessons.pdf/32

Rh its meaning and purposes' (Marx, 1970, p. 949). We cannot justify dull practice (or even non-dull practice, or even a 'fun' language course) solely on the basis of its contribution to learning, which in turn contributes to the fulfillment of some future [economic or] spiritual goal (Lado, 1964, p. 42). If the student is a physical organism, we cannot remain content with our present ignorance (Kandel, 1970, p. 70) of the neuronal mechanisms that are the microphysiological counterparts of observed language learning behavior.

Although Kandel very recently (. .) and others (for example, Chomsky, 1965, p. 57) have affirmed our inability to explain in cellular terms what we know about behavior and learning in higher animals, writers and teachers continue to make assumptions about the neuro-mechanics of language acquisition. Occasionally, they make these assumptions explicit, as in the following quotations from Marvin Brown (. .). According to Brown, 'the student [must first] get the pattern ringing in his ears.' Then, by repeating, 'he…acquires…muscular facility.' Now a path may be 'built from ear to mouth' and 'from eye to mouth.' Finally, the student 'burns the pattern into the brain by going through the drill…many times at increasing speed' (p. 4). Repeating and participating 'many times, constantly pushing for slightly greater speed' is 'the payoff [and] the step that builds the habit' (p. xviii). One may ask whether too much of this kind of practice may not lead to habituation (learning to ignore stimuli that have lost novelty or meaning) rather than to habit formation. But while some of the word pictures in this description are obviously intended to convey methodological rather than anatomical truths, the idea of strengthening selected neural paths by sheer frequency of use is by no means new to language teachers.