WELCOME!!

 

Maestría en la Docencia del Idioma Inglés

The Critical Period Hypothesis and Its Effects in Second Language Acquisition

Félix Razhiel Martínez López

Essay

Dra. Ma. Gloria Toledo Espino

                      

January 8^th, 2018

Introduction

Each year, more and more people are learning a second language/foreign language all over the world, including in Mexico. The efforts to acquire a second language is not only due to the globalization but also for the philosophy that says “the younger, the better”. Acquiring a second language can bring many benefits as: getting better employment, wider communication, higher social standards and many more advantages. One of the big issues debated and discussed by linguists and the language acquisition field is the age; the time when a person starts and stops learning a language to obtain native-like accent and or language development. Many studies have been done about this aspect of language acquisition, but the first studies were initiated by The Critical Period Hypothesis. The CPH has its own story of how it was developed; many people may supported or not, but the truth is that there some facts which differs from children and adult acquiring a second language.

Development of CPH

What is The Critical Period Hypothesis? The “Critical Period Hypothesis” refers to the idea that the ability to acquire language is related to aging and there is an ideal period of time to attain a language; if language input does not occur after this time, the person will no longer obtain a full command of language, especially in the grammatical systems and phonology. This hypothesis was originally proposed by Penfield and Roberts (1959) and then by Lenneberg (1967) who suggested that it could be extended to the second language acquisition. Other studies made after, all found the same result that second language learning performance established negatively with the age at which the learning begins before puberty. This means that they have found evidence that there is a critical period when a person struggles to develop the language as a native does. Some writers have suggested an ‘optimal’ or ‘sensitive’ period instead of the critical one. There are other linguists and researchers who dispute the causes of physical, maturation, cognitive factors which may affect the language acquisition. The duration of the period also varies among linguists. For instance, according to Steven Pinker (1994) in his book The Language Instinct, states that “acquisition of a normal language is guaranteed for children up to the age of six, is steadily compromised from ten until shortly after puberty, and is rare thereafter” (p. 293). Krashen argues that a children’s critical period ends at the age of five. There may be different theories of the limit time a children cannot acquire a language native-like to the fullest, but the truth is that there is a period limit according theses linguists and the evidence of their researches.  

For and Against CPH

The existence of The Critical Period Hypothesis has been tested by many researchers that based on their studies’ evidences some support the hypothesis and others do not. It is assumed that native-like language acquisition attainment it is influenced by social, educational and motivational factors. Johnson and Newport (1989, 1991) have found some evidences in their study that a strong age-related decrease in proficiency for languages learned before they hit puberty and random variation in second language achievement among older learners, supporting the Critical Period Hypothesis. However, the data were controversial because age of exposure, duration of exposure, and social and linguistic backgrounds of the participants are possible factors that may lead to imprecise evidence (Bialystok and Hakuta, 1994). Other evidence that support the Critical Period Hypothesis is found in the research article by Hakuta, Bialystok and Wiley (2003) the effect of age of acquisition on second language proficiency, they studied a large number of immigrants with different ages of initial exposure to English. Evidence for a critical period emphasizes a clear discontinuity in learning outcome around a specific age, independent of social and educational factors which can also affect performance. They searched for an evidence for a critical period by observing immigrants second language learning performances.

On the other hand, other researchers (e.g., Epstein, Flynn & Martohardjono, 1996; Hakuta, 2001) rejected the Critical Period Hypothesis. Identification of older learners who achieve native-like competence in a second language and behavioral evidence that fails to reveal a qualitative change in learning outcomes at the end of a set period have been used to challenge the Critical Period Hypothesis. An alternative to the critical period hypothesis is that second language learning declines with age, because of social and educational factors, as well as cognitive aging which interfere with the adult’s ability to learn a new language (Hakuta, 2003). It is suggested by Bialystok and Hakuta (1994) and Flege et al. (1999) that among social factors, and the amount of the second language education is the strongest predictor of second language acquisition. The amount of language and how often they use it varies among immigrants because they have different experiences of exposure to different levels of the new language and have different opportunities for formal study of the language. Therefore, the age is not the only factor which has effect on a person to be able to acquire a language, there are other important factors that have to be taken into consideration as well. For these reasons there are some linguists that do not fully support the Critical Period Hypothesis.

Children vs Adult SLA

            Children and adults acquire a language in different ways, and they may differ for many reasons; in motivation, for wanting to learn a language, the need to identify themselves like native speakers, but also the way children acquire a language may be more easily as they learn with stories, songs, commands, fun dynamics, whereas adults learn the language with rules, the use of language but also with dynamics. Some factors that may block learners from acquiring a second language are the barriers that these two encounter along the way, as the critical period hypothesis. There are such researches as the one by Krashen which have found that only early learners of a second language are able to achieve native-like performance in pronunciation (Krashen, personal communication; Asher & Garcia, 1969). A research paper by Oyama (1976) investigated the existence of a critical period for acquisition of the phonological system of a non-native language. Oyama tested the hypothesis that there is a developmental period beginning approximately from 18 months to the end of maturation, during this time it is possible for a person to acquire the pronunciation of a native speaker, but after this period the acquisition of native-like it is not fully developed. Other important evidence which was found by Larew (1961) states that early learning is superior to late, supporting the Critical Period Hypothesis for second language acquisition.

On the contrary, Jakobovits (1970) does not agree with critical period hypothesis by affirming that children studying a foreign language in school do not always attain native-like pronunciation, and that some adults can acquire native-like pronunciation and conversational knowledge with intensive training and practice. There may be a small percentages about this affirmation, because based on many research evidence, children have a great advantage over adults to acquire native-like language. Another person who argues against the critical period hypothesis is Ellen Bialystok who is a psychologist and professor. She states that there is no period where a structure in the brain is modified in a way that makes subsequent language learning harder or impossible. She backs up her negative statement about the critical period and even mentions that the CPH is a synonymous on a specific technical definition used in ethology that includes 14 essential structural characteristics that describe such a period (Bornstein 1989). 

Conclusion

To sum up, it is my belief that in order for the acquisition of any language, whether first language or second language, to be as natural and spontaneous as the language of native speakers, for example, achieving perfect control of it and fluency; it has to take place within a specific time limit. After a certain point, the ability will most likely fade out gradually, leading to either less proficient language ability or a distorted one.

There may be many hypothesis, researches and evidences which are in favor of the Critical Period Hypothesis or not. Based on many studies there is a lot of evidence which supports and states that children can attain native-like accent or the development of a language better than a teenager or adult. Bialystok emphasizes that “On average, children are more successful than adults when faced with the task of learning a second language” (Bialystok 1997:117). Having this said, I also think children can have a greater attainment of a second language than adults, but I also believe that sometimes it is not important to sound or be fluent as a native speaker. The main idea about learning a second language is to be able to communicate effectively with others; it may not be spoken with the greatest accent, but to be able to understand and be understood, but then again it all depends the reason why you are learning a language.

References

Asher, J. J., and Garcia R. (1969). The optimal age to learn a foreign language.                Mod. Lang. J. 53: 334-342.

Bialystok, E. 1997. The structure of age: in search of barriers to second language acquisition. Second Language Research 13(2): 116-137.

Bialystok, E., & Hakuta, K. (1994). In other words: The science and psychology of second-language acquisition. New York: Basic Books.

Bornstein, M.H. 1989. Sensitive periods in development: structural characteristics and causal interpretations. Psychological Bulletin 105,179–97.

Epstein, S., Flynn, S., & Martohardjono, G. (1996). Second language acquisition: Theoretical and experimental issues in contemporary research. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 19, 677–758.

Flege, J. E. (1999). Age of learning and second-language speech. In D. Birdsong (Ed.), Second language acquisition and the Critical Period Hypothesis (pp. 101–131). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hakuta, K., Bialystok E. & Wiley, E. (2003).Critical Evidence: A test of the critical-period hypothesis

Jakobovits, L. A. (1970). Foreign Language Learning: A Psycho-linguistic Analysis of the Issues, Newbury House, Rowley, Mass.

Johnson, J. S., & Newport, E.L. (1989). Critical period effects in second language learning: The influence of maturational state on the acquisition of English as a second language. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 60–99.

Krashen, S. (1975b) "The critical period for language acquisition and its possible bases." In D. Aaronson and R. Rieber (Eds.), Developmental Psycholinguistics and Communicative Disorders. New York: New York Academy of Science

Larew, L. (1961). The optimum age for beginning a foreign language. Mod. Lang. s

45: 203-206.

Lenneberg, E. (1967) Biological Foundations of Language New York: Wiley.

Oyama, S. (1976).A Sensitive period for the acquisition of a nonnative phonological system. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research. 5, 261-283.

Penfield, W. and Roberts, L. (1959) Speech and Brain Mechanisms Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Pinker, S. (1994). The Language Instinct. New York, NY: Harper Perennial Modern Classics.