Difference in Language Learning at Different Ages - Essay Example

?Research perspectives: Role and relevance of critical learning period hypothesis in second language acquisition Contents: Ch. No. Topic Pg. No Introduction 2 1.1. Thesis statement 3 1.2. Research objectives 3 1.3. Research problems 4 1.4. Significance of the research 4 1.5. Historical background 5 2. Literature Review 6 3. Conclusion 12 Bibliography 13 1. Introduction: Adults in general are considered superior to children in almost every field due to their obvious advantage over them in almost every aspect physically as well as mentally. They have higher and better developed cognitive skills giving them an edge over their younger counterparts. However language learning is one of the very crucial skills where they can be outsmarted by children. The critical learning period hypothesis posits that children learn a second language faster as compared to adults and have the ability to achieve native like expertise. Adults on the other hand are less likely to learn a second language post a certain age and such feat as achieving native-like expertise observed in young children, is almost non-existent or at best a rare phenomenon (Chiswick and Miller, 2008; DeKeyser, 2000). Researchers and language experts have observed that children up to a certain age naturally possess the ability to grasp various languages if they are exposed to it and achieve expertise and fluency in both – their native language as well as the foreign language. This skill or expertise is however highly restricted to a certain period of time known as a critical period. If this period passes the language learning skills begin to fade and acquiring proficiency or native-like expertise in second language learning becomes a highly challenging task (Reichle, 2010; Rasinger, 2007; Singleton, 1989). However this hypothesis has found several critics who dismiss such claims and debate the relevance of the hypothesis (Nikolov, 2000; Hornberger and Corson, 1997; Ioup et al., 1994; Scovel, 2000). This study aims to assess, explore and analyse the credibility of the ‘critical period hypothesis’ and ascertain the impact, role, and implications of this period in second language acquisition via a comprehensive study of literature available on the subject. 1.1. Thesis statement: Competence in all spheres of human life is usually expected to increase and improve gradually over time and individuals are known to achieve expertise in various skills over the course of their lives. However certain skills such as language learning for instance, are restricted to a certain critical period whereby it is claimed that L2 proficiency is best achieved before this 'critical period' since unlike other skills it is known to fade over time, thus implying that children are better equipped to achieve L2 proficiency as compared to adults. 1.2. Research objectives: The key objective of this study includes: To examine the relevance of critical period with respect to acquiring language learning skills among children and adults To ascertain whether children have superiority in language learning as compared to adults and whether such ability is dependent on a specific learning period. To examine the various factors such as biological, psychological, environmental, etc and assess its impact on second language acquisition. 1.3. Research problems: Being an English teacher in Saudi Arabia, I have often observed the various learning patterns of learners of English as a second language. Some of the key problems discussed as a part of this study include the following: Is there a substantial difference between adults and children with respect to second language acquisition? In what aspects does the critical period affect second language acquisition among individuals? Is there a common consensus among researchers with regard to relevance and credibility of the critical period hypothesis and its impact on second language acquisition among children and adults? Whether the decline in language learning abilities is the consequence of maturational factors or cognitive factors or any other factors? Is there a specific time frame for the onset of such learning blocks? 1.4. Significance of the research: Research with regard to second language acquisition have consistently emphasized the significance age in second language acquisition citing the strong correlation between age and second language learning. It is claimed by various studies that achieving native-like proficiency can only be possible if the children are exposed to the second / foreign language before the onset of puberty (Abrahamsson and Hyltenstam, 2008; Abu-rabia and Kehat, 2004; Bialystok, 2009; Bialystok and Barac, 2011). However this hypothesis has been debated and critically reviewed over the years by various researchers with substantial evidence indicating that achieving native-like proficiency is possible even after the critical period, raising doubts regarding the relevance of the critical period hypothesis. This study entails a comprehensive discussion of both sides of the research including those supporting and critiquing the hypothesis and help in arriving at a definite conclusion. It aims to explore the topic in depth and provide an analysis of the various factors that contribute and affect language learning among children and adults alike. The results derived would help educationalists, academicians, researchers as well as individuals in general in understanding the impact of age on language learning and the various causes that contribute to such decline and adopt various means to overcome the obstacles and challenges faced while learning a second / foreign language. 1.5. Historical background: The Critical Hypothesis was put forward by Lenneberg (1967) and Penfield and Roberts (1959) and is known to have found several supporters as well as critiques over time making it one of the most widely debated issues in the field of linguistic studies. This hypothesis posits that there exists a certain fixed period or time-limit within which an individual can acquire language learning skills. This period lasts till puberty after which language learning becomes a highly tedious task due to the natural maturational process which peaks at puberty, thus enabling children to learn a second / foreign language faster as compared to adults. According to Lenneberg (1967): “Most individuals of average intelligence are able to learn a second language after the beginning of their second decade, although the incidence of “language-learning-blocks” rapidly increases after puberty. Also automatic acquisition from mere exposure to a given language seems to disappear after this age, and foreign languages have to be taught and learned through a conscious and laboured effort. Foreign accents cannot be overcome easily after puberty” (Pp. 176) There is a growing body of literature which supports and challenges this hypothesis on various grounds including the relevance and credibility of the hypothesis; the nature of the hypothesis i.e. severity and sensitivity of the period stated by the researchers; the causes behind the decline in language learning abilities etc. among others. This hypothesis has been discussed and debated widely by researchers not only with regard to second language acquisition but also the first language as well. According to some researchers the critical period hypothesis is applicable to both – learners of first language as well as second / foreign language as well (Bley-Vroman 1989, Schachter 1996). The debates and discussions substantiating and refuting this hypothesis are discussed in the following section 2. Literature Review Historically the issue of age and its correlation with language learning, particularly acquisition of second language has garnered considerable attention among researchers, scholars and academicians alike. Some researchers have observed and subsequently claimed that although adults seem to have a clear initial advantage over younger learners in terms of learning a foreign language children are better equipped to acquire second language skills as compared to adults in the long run. This is because children have better skills in second language acquisition as compared to older learners (Krashen, 1975; Long, 1990). Such observations made by initial researchers have proved to be highly significant in the field of language studies providing vital evidence in support of the critical period hypothesis. The claims made by the early researchers were based on the assumption that the gradual biological changes taking place in a human body help in ascertaining a critical period which restricts the acquisition of certain skills over a period of time. This is evident from the significant differences found between L2 learners across various age groups (Bongaerts, 2003; Bialystok, 1997). According to a study carried out by Asher and Garcia (1969) on a group of Cuban immigrants comprising of 71 students between the ages of 7 and 19 who immigrated to the United States and have been living there since five years. The participants also included a group of thirty native speakers of English. The Cuban immigrants were tested on their spoken ability and were asked to read English sentences aloud which were then tape recorded and presented to the native speakers of English to judge and rate them on a scale of native to definite foreign accent, depending on the accent. It was observed that although none of the Cuban immigrants managed to acquire a native accent, there was a strong linear relationship between their ages and the language learning abilities with regard to their quality of pronunciation. Statistics revealed that an overwhelming majority i.e., 68% of the younger students between the age of 1 and 6 had a near native accent while only 41% of the older students between the ages of 7 and 14 were judged to have a near native pronunciation. The oldest of the lot i.e. those belonging to the 13 - 19 age group (66% of them) were judged to have a definite foreign accent and only 17% of the students from the older age group managed to achieve a near native accent as opposed to 68% of students belonging to the 1-6 age group (Asher and Garcia, 1969). Proponents of the critical period hypothesis argue that if there is an apparent difference between proficiency levels among younger and older learners of foreign language who were exposed to the second language for an equal period of time then such difference can be purely attributed to critical period hypothesis. Lenneberg (1967) states that the critical period of language learning commences at the age of 2 and peaks during puberty, however past the age of twelve the various physical and biological changes taking place in the human brain prevent the processing of language functions from the left hemisphere of the brain to the right. According to early studies conducted by Oyama (1978) in Johnson & Newport (1989) and Patkowski (1980) which focused on the grammatical accuracy of immigrants who arrived in the U.S. at various ages, it was observed that the age of arrival of such individuals was the only strong predictor of the differences which existed between the level of accuracy attained by the learners. These studies affirmed the claim that the age factor or the critical period plays a major role in second language acquisition and particularly in achieving native-like proficiency. Scovel (1988) states that biological factors play a key role in the acquisition of a foreign language post puberty. These differences are visible with regard to various aspects of language learning such as phonological production which is known to be highly influenced by neuromuscular factor making it difficult for adult learners to achieve native-like pronunciations. Long (1990) and Patkowski (1994) have claimed in their studies that achieving native-like proficiency by adult learners is impossible if they are not exposed to the second language before the critical period i.e. the onset of puberty. While experts agree that there exists a critical period or the age factor in first language acquisition however in terms of second language acquisition there are various other factors, apart from age, which shape the language acquisition process. These other factors include: biological factors, maturational constraints, sustained deprivation from language, cognitive factors etc. Although it has been widely observed that there are significant differences between the language learning abilities of young and adult learners, there also exist a growing body of research which refute such claims and provide evidence in support of adult learners who have managed to achieve native-like proficiency, thus defying the age or critical period barrier. Birdsong and Molis (2001) acknowledge the existence of a critical period and the role of age in influencing acquisition of second language among individuals argues that if such changes are due to biological factors then there should be consistency and consensus among researchers with regard to their findings. Patkowski (1994) claims that although the attainment of native-like proficiency among adult learners of foreign language can be difficult it however cannot be completely ruled out stating that it can be attained by exceptional learners. In a study carried out by White and Genesse (1996) a group of 89 speakers of English as a second language were tested across various critical skills including grammar, question formation, and interview skills. The participants were evaluated and assessed on the basis of their performance with regard to pronunciation, morpho-syntax, fluency as well as use of vocabulary as compared to the native speakers. The results suggested that a majority of the L2 learners excelled in all the listed fields and their language proficiency was comparable to that of the native speakers. They were found to be at par with the native speakers with regard to grammar, vocabulary, speed, accuracy in almost all the tasks assigned to them, and in many cases their performance was practically indistinguishable from that of the native speakers in written tasks. In another study conducted by Bongaets et al., (1997) on adult L2 learners similar observations were made whereby the L2 learners were found to be proficient in the foreign language comparable to the native speakers in all aspects including vocabulary, morphology as well as syntax. However the adult L2 learners were found to be lagging behind the native speakers with regard to pronunciation. Most of the adult L2 learners were found to have a heavy foreign accent despite excelling in all other aspects of language learning. The case of Joseph Conrad, the Polish-born highly acclaimed author of English novels is a case in point. Conrad's work has been included as required readings in English literature classes. However despite his proficiency in the written language he continued to speak it with a strong Polish accent prompting the emergence of the phrase 'the Joseph Conrad phenomenon' referring to the lack of correlation between lexical, morphological, pronunciation, and syntactic performance. Similarly the former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger displayed a strong and unmistakable German accent thus further substantiating the critical period hypothesis (Singleton and Lengyel, 1995). The evidences available across literature based on second language acquisition skills point to the fact that the critical period hypothesis is only applicable to certain aspects of language learning and do not in any way prohibit second language acquisition skills among adult learners (Bongerts et al., 1997; Bellingham, 2000; Nikolov, 2000; Neufeld, 2001). The evidence suggests that critical period does not completely deteriorate the ability to learn a foreign language post puberty but only affects a part of the process such as ability to achieve native-like proficiency with regard to pronunciation only. The rest of the factors critical for acquisition of L2 learning such as morphology, syntax, and grammatical accuracy more or less remain intact despite age thus indicating that achieving native-like proficiency is possible among adults in all areas of language learning except perhaps pronunciation. Language learning is a complex process comprising of a combination of factors and hence analysing it on the basis of the critical period hypothesis may not help in deriving accurate observations. This is because the critical period only affects a part of the language learning process mostly pronunciation, among the adult learners or those past the age of puberty but the rest of the factors remain more or less the same. It has been amply substantiated that proficiency in second language among adults at levels comparable to the native speakers is not an impossible task and not affected by the critical period as claimed by various studies. Also it has been observed that although there exists a specific definition for ‘critical period hypothesis’ the term ‘native-like proficiency’ which has been widely used by researchers has not been appropriately defined thus lending ambiguity to the studies. The availability of a specific definition is of utmost significance in order to arrive at definite conclusions and enable comparison, discussions, and debates to prove or dismiss the hypothesis. In the presence of fundamental errors such as lack of availability of key terms which have been widely used by researchers throughout the literature tends to affect the study and prevent logical conclusions rendering the entire process irrelevant. Furthermore there is significant disagreement and differences of opinion among researchers with regard to the age of onset and offset, thus adding ambiguity to the study and challenge the concept of critical period in the process. The lack of availability of definitions and clarifications with regard to certain terms used in the study by the researchers tends to hinder the very purpose of the study and question the validity of the claims made. 3. Conclusion: The critical period hypothesis claims that acquisition of a second / foreign language is greatly affected by age and that achieving native-like competency in adulthood post the age of puberty is a highly difficult, if not impossible, task. The statement in itself is highly controversial in nature given the growing body of evidence refuting this claim. The studies included in the literature review indicate that the process of acquisition of second language and achieving native-like proficiency is not related to age and that it is possible to achieve proficiency in a foreign language regardless of age. The critical period does not affect all aspects of language acquisition process but does affect pronunciation among the adult learners. There is unanimous consensus among researchers indicating by way of various studies that younger children are more likely to achieve native-like pronunciations as compared to adult learners. Furthermore the lack of adequate definitions of various key terms may be accountable for the existence of such debates regarding the age factor. On one hand there is ample evidence in the form of studies which supports the belief that adult L2 learners have failed to attain native like proficiency other set of researchers have dismissed such a claim by providing counter evidence, also in the form of studies. Thus the only logical way to address such a debate, in the absence of clear and effective definitions of certain key terms is to investigate the issue by rephrasing the concept and expanding its focus on other equally important factors and moving away from the age factor. In conclusion, although the role of age in influencing performance of adult L2 learners cannot be completely denied, the causes however can be probed further to offer a novel perspective. Bibliography: Abrahamsson, N., Hyltenstam, K. (2008). The robustness of aptitude effects in near-native second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. Vol. 30 (4): p. 481-509. Abu-rabia, S., Kehat, S., (2004). The critical period for second language pronunciations: Is there such a thing? Educational Psychology: An International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology. Vol. 24: p. 77-97. Asher, J., Garcia, R., (1969). The optimal age to learn a foreign language. Modern Language Journal. Vol. 53: p. 334-342. Bialystok, E., (2009). Bilingual minds. Psychological Science in the Public Interest. Vol. 10 (3): p. 89-129. Bialystok, E., Barac, R., (2011). Emerging bilingualism: Dissociating advantages of metalinguistic awareness and executive control. Cognition. Vol. 22: p. 67-73. Birdsong, D., & Molis, M. (2001). On the evidence for maturational constraints in second language acquisition. Journal of Memory and Language. Vol. 44: p. 235-249. Bley-Vroman, R. (1988). The fundamental character of foreign language learning. In W.Rutherford & M. Sharwood Smith (Eds.), Grammar and second language teaching: A book of readings. Pp. 19-30 Bongaerts, T., van Summeren, C., Planken, B., & Schils, E. (1997). Age and ultimate attainment in the pronunciation of a foreign language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. Vol. 19: p. 447-465. Chiswick, B., Miller, P., (2008). A test of the Critical Period Hypothesis for language learning. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. Vol. 29 (1): p. 16-29. DeKeyser, R. M., (2000). The robustness of critical period effects in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. Vol. 22: p. 499-533. Hornberger, N. H., Corson, D., (1997). Research methods in language and education. Norwell, MA: Kluver Academic Publishers. Ioup, G., Boustagui, E., Tigi, M. E., Moselle, M., (1994). Reexamining the critical period hypothesis: A case study of successful adult SLA in a naturalistic environment. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. Vol. 16: p. 73-98. Krashen, S. D. (1975). The critical period for language and its possible bases. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. Vol. 263: p. 211-224. Lenneberg, E. (1967). Biological foundations of language. New York: Wiley Publication. Long, M. (1990). Maturational constraints on language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. Vol. 12: p. 251-285 Nikolov, M., (2000). The critical period hypothesis reconsidered: Successful adult learners of Hungarian and English. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching. Vol. 38: p. 109-124. Neufeld G. G., (2001). Non-foreign-accented speech in adult second language learners: does it exist and what does it signify? ITL Review of Applied Linguistics. 133-134, p. 185-206. Oyama, S. (1978). The sensitive period and comprehension of speech. Working Papers on Bilingualism. vol. 16: p. 1-17. Patkowski, M. (1980). The sensitive period for the acquisition of syntax in a second language. Language Learning. Vol. 30: p. 449-472 Penfield W & L Roberts (1959). Speech and Brain Mechanisms Princeton University Press Princeton. Rasinger, S., (2007). Revisiting the critical period: Age of onset or length of exposure. Proceedings of the Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development. Vol. 31 (2): p. 532-542. Reichle, R. V., (2010). Judgments of information structure in L2 French: Nativelike performance and the critical period hypothesis. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching. Vol. 48: p. 53-85 Scovel, T., (2000). A critical review of the critical period research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics. Vol. 20: p. 213-223. Schachter, J. , (1996). ‘Maturation and the issue of universal grammar in second language acquisition’ in WC Ritchie & TJ Bhatia (eds.) Handbook of Second Language Acquisition Academic Press New York: p. 159-193 Singleton, D., (1989). Language acquisition: The age factor. Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters Publication. Singleton, D., Lengyel, Z., (1995). The age factor in second language acquisition: A critical look at the critical period hypothesis. Philadelphia: Multi Lingual Matters Publication. Read More