Thu, Mar 19, 2026 page8

• Bilingual policy lacks leadership

  • By Gerhard Erasmus
  • • 
    • 
    • 

  I was quite pleased when I saw the title of the Taipei Times Editorial on Thursday last week — “A targeted bilingual policy.” Unfortunately, I was left quite disappointed by what was a rehash of old second language acquisition myths and a woeful representation of the rigorous body of research into language learning and what might make something like the Bilingual 2030 initiative successful.

  I completely agree that the amount of money spent on the initiative has been terribly mismanaged, and often because those involved in it seem more interested in profit than in actual results. We are past the halfway mark, and the effects of all of these isolated projects and events, as mentioned in the editorial, is minimally, if at all, visible.

  However, what derailed the project right from the start are opinions as expressed in the editorial, and I think it is about time we held those in positions to shape policy to account for what at times appear intellectual laziness, and at other times intellectual dishonesty.

  “True bilingualism requires a comprehensively immersive environment in the target language in the classroom and outside it starting from a young age. Pronunciation — particularly of short and long vowels — is also ideally taught by native speakers to ensure a proper foundation,” the editorial says.

  There are numerous problems with this statement. First, there is absolutely no solid research to indicate that bilingualism requires an immersive environment. In fact, the work of Merrill Swain questions the effect of French immersion in Canada (mentioned later in the editorial) and her “Output-Hypothesis,” coupled with Michael Long’s “Interactional Hypothesis,” is not only far more likely to produce bilinguals, but also solidly researched. In addition, it creates the false fear in readers (parents in Taiwan) that without immersion or an “English only environment” bilingualism is unattainable. This is verifiably false. Considering students in French immersion programs mentioned above generally attained a CEFR B1 or B2 level, and according to Ben Knight (www.cambridge.org/elt/blog/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/How-long-does-it-take-to-learn-a-foreign-language.pdf) it takes between 500 and 900 hours of instruction to reach B1 or B2, you have to ask yourself why there are not more students in Taiwan at this level. Junior-high and high-school students in Taiwan have on average three English classes a week for 35 weeks for six years. If we use lexicon (not the most accurate, but a useful baseline) as an indicator of level, and they learn five words in each of their 630 (or more) English lessons, we should have all students graduating at a B1 level at least. The issue is not immersion. The issue is the amount of money wasted on trainers or “experts” who, like the author of the editorial, are woefully unaware of how to train teachers to achieve the results Taiwan requires.

  The second issue with that statement is “from a young age.” What is commonly referred to as the critical period hypothesis has been debunked so many times it is not even worth writing about it. Starting with David Birdsong would be useful for anyone who still thinks you have to start early, or that children learn languages faster than adults. Both are verifiably false.

  The third issue is about native speakers. There is absolutely no indication that native speakers produce any better results than qualified proficient non-native speakers, and if anything, considering what the market views as a native speaker, it is a remarkably racist statement that slipped through your editorial process.

  Finally (in relation to that one statement), long vowel, short vowel distinction is by far not the biggest issue with pronunciation. Jennifer Jenkins would be a good start here. In short, the long/short vowel is a misnomer, as it does not actually refer to vowel length, but to vowel quality. The distinction is definitely not pronouncing cat so it sounds like cake, as is implied in the editorial, but pronouncing bag so it sounds like beg, or confusing bathroom and bedroom due to vowel quality issues. This consistent hammering on short and long vowels and the “native speaker” throughout the editorial is probably the most disappointing in the entire editorial.

  The reference to Krashen is almost typical of someone who has read something online, does not understand it and then uses it to prove a point they do not understand. To put Krashen into practice, and I completely agree it should be front and center for the first at least three years of learning (perhaps Grade 1 to 3) requires story-based approaches such as Teaching Proficiency through Reading and Storytelling. By the time students can consume media in English, they have moved way beyond the need for comprehensible input, and into an area of learning through doing (See Long’s interactional hypothesis). The reading to increase proficiency and Krashen’s hypothesis relate more to the acquisition learning distinction than the need for comprehensible input. Refer here to Krashen’s 88 Generalizations about Free Voluntary Reading.

  While there are so many other issues with the editorial, I will end with this. When we have tests like the IELTS, TOEFL or the range of Cambridge, Pearson or Trinity exams, language proficiency is tested. You can make educated guesses on someone’s overall ability based on their lexicon, morpho-syntax and phonological skills. The reason is because it is measurable. Very measurable. While communication skills and empathy, etc are soft skills directly impacted by language, something that you can measure to the extent that you can measure language proficiency makes it a hard skill. Not soft. It might sound jargony and nice, but it is just wrong.

  I have been asked why I do not want to get involved in any of the projects related to bilingualism in Taiwan. There are two main reasons. There are too many people who share the editorial’s opinions based on a complete lack of education and experience who are unwilling to critically look at their own contribution to the spreading of educational myths to the detriment of Taiwan’s young people. I hope the writer of the editorial does not fall into that category. Right now, it looks to me like the bilingualism ship captain is either absent or heading straight for an iceberg. I do not like swimming in cold water. Are there solutions? Absolutely, the issue is not a lack of solutions. It is a lack of leadership.

  Gerhard Erasmus is the course and academic director at Inspired CPD, a certified Cambridge DELTA and Trinity course director and tutor, an ex-trustee of IATEFL, and ex-coordinator of the IATEFL Leadership and Management Special Interest Group. He has more than two decades of experience in ELT management, teacher training and assessment.
• Most Popular

  • 1

    Large bamboo viper catch in Tainan puzzles bureau

  • 2

    Danish envoys’ privileges revoked over naming controversy

  • 3

    Kenting park officer wins international photography award

  • 4

    Horse euthanized after winning the Grand National race

  • 5

    Eight million barrels of oil to set sail for Taiwan this month