Response to criticisms of the neurolinguistic approach (NLA)

In 2022, a series of articles emerged sharply criticizing the authors and promoters of the neurolinguistic approach (NLA), notably my 2017 work. This article offers a personal reaction to these criticisms, first addressing the author's unreserved adherence to Roussel and Gaonac'h's views on double dissociation, the explicit/implicit opposition, and the lack of novelty in NLA. It then presents the origins and goals of NLA, followed by an examination of the critic author's epistemological stance. Finally, it highlights their confusion of genres and suggests that their position stems from a personal conflict of interest, in addition to misunderstandings and erroneous beliefs.

The argument from authority

Yesterday, the ANL was criticized for relying on a argument from authority of neuroscience and supports the views of Roussel and Gaonac’h. The latter criticize the notion of Double dissociation between declarative memory and procedural memory, asserting confusion in LTM between these mechanisms. However, their evidence relies on experiments with an artificial language, which paradoxically further confirms Paradis' position that declarative and procedural knowledge are independent.

Antier's critical reasoning is based on a false syllogism, claiming there is a transformation of explicit knowledge into procedural knowledge, without providing any solid empirical data. In reality, Paradis's thesis is supported by numerous empirical research studies conducted in real school settings, where behavioral effects are demonstrated.

💻 Explicit/Implicit Opposition

On this issue, Antier adopts the erroneous position of Roussel and Gaonac’h, who wrongly claim that the ANL rejects any explicit approach. However, the foundational works of the ANL clearly emphasize the simultaneous development of the implicit competence and of Explicit knowledge, particularly language awareness, rules, and vocabulary.

🏥 Lack of novelty in the ANL

Critics claim that ANL does not represent innovation and follows old didactic traditions, but these claims contain several inaccuracies. Notably, ANL differs sharply from Krashen's natural approach by limiting input to a restricted number of model sentences and especially valuing output as an essential condition for acquisition.

Similarly, the link with the communicative approach is superficial: CALT prioritizes authentic communication and the personal interests of learners, rather than pre-determined needs or simulated activities. CALT also chronologically precedes the actional approach and the direct method, with specific principles that should not be confused.

Another misconception is that it is forbidden to use the source language in NLP. On the contrary, photocopies of guides pedagogical tools, often free, illustrate the great flexibility of ANL, which does not propose a rigid list of linguistic structures to be taught.

🌍 The origins and purposes of the ANL

The first experiments of the ANL, then called a transdisciplinary approach, date back to 1998 and were based on the concepts of Cummins and Vygotsky. The term «neurolinguistic approach» was adopted in 2009 to designate this methodology for adult university students, particularly in China, in reference to Paradis's unifying theory.

Numerous independent researchers have since conducted empirical research on NLP, which continues today. NLP is based on general principles adapted to local sociocultural contexts, fostering collective deliberation between didacticians and teachers, far from an applicative stance.

The ANL's objectives are not limited to the functional or pragmatist dimension; each teaching unit includes objectives communicative, cognitive/affective and cultural. language is also considered a worldview, justifying a sentence-based pedagogy for acquiring grammatical properties inherent to the lexicon.

Finally, the universalism attributed to ANL is merely a cautious explanatory hypothesis, supported by neuroscience research showing the universality of neural learning mechanisms, with cultural adaptations, illustrating the complementarity between empirical data and cognitive linguistics.

📚 About Epistemology

Antier's critique is characterized by a threefold epistemological weakness. First, his naive conception of neuroscience as a «hard science» ignores its belonging to the human and social sciences, where contextual diversity and social change generate Rival schools of thought.

Next, her argumentation personalizes the debate with opinions based on her personal teaching experience, without taking into account the distinctions between accelerated use forms and automatic transformation of knowledge. It also rejects neuroscientific data on the limbic system and the desire to communicate.

Finally, its epistemology deprives itself of its empirical dimension: it postulates unsupported hypotheses, ignores the numerous Rigorous empirical research at the base of French Intensive (ancestor of ANL) and omits to mention the evidence-based data published and evaluated by ministerial bodies.

🎓 Gender Confusion

Yesterday, he indistinctly mingled the criticism of the ANL's designers with that of its promoters, calling the ANL a «self-promotional rhetoric» lacking scientific rigor. However, the promotion of the ANL is based on observed effectiveness results in a school context, while also acknowledging its limitations concerning students of various profiles.

⚖️ Defamatory remarks and a conflict of interest

Antier's critique reveals an anti-ANL ideology that doesn't align with the approach's actual characteristics. The accusations of conflicts of interest among the designers are unfounded: neither my colleague nor I had any financial interests in the ANL, which has neither a manual nor a commercial publication. Teachers receive the proposed educational materials free of charge.

On the contrary, Antier is a co-author of a textbook used in Japan, and his anti-ANL stance could reflect Personal conflict of interest. His method also consists of repeating certain passages from earlier articles, a clear case of self-plagiarism, demonstrating a belligerent rhetoric rather than constructive scientific debate.

📝 Conclusion: For an openness to reasoned criticism and informed debate

These critiques offer an important clarification after more than 25 years of controlled experiments in language didactics. ANL is distinguished from other methods by its empirical and theoretical foundations, while acknowledging its merits and limitations. Despite attempts to protect personal interests, it is essential to encourage an honest scientific debate, clearly separating research findings from the promotional language of the approach's advocates.

English version of the article translated by AI.

Source & Credits

Author: Claude Germain

Original article: https://journals.openedition.org/rdlc/15121