[log in to unmask] kirjoitti: > li [Risto Kupsala] mi tulis la > > >>> Without the immerision at a young age, a child isn't likely to gain >>> enough fluency in another language. >>> > > >> That's rubbish and you should know that. >> > > It's well known that people learn better at a younger age, and that > young children can learn much easier than adults. > But that wasn't your original proposition. You claimed that without immersion at a young age a child isn't likely to gain enough fluency in another language. I don't know what's enough fluency in your opinion, but for example in Scandinavia many people speak rather fluent English without being immersed into that language ever. For that reason I appreciate the policy taken in some other African countries where at least the elementary education is given in a native language and former colonial language is taught as a subject, before switching completely to the former colonial language at higher level of education. >>> At a young age the child will >>> become more proficient in that language, and then there should be no >>> >> issue with teaching in it. >> > > >> But what about the native language that is being marginalized? How >> > will a > >> language develop literature and other cultural artifacts if it's >> > spoken only at > >> home and streets? >> > > So what if it's only used in the homes and the streets? > You can find the answer yourself. Just imagine how it would feel like if you could speak English only at home and at streets, but you would have to switch to some totally foreign language like Arabic in all formal situations and in all written communication.