Pedagogical Implications on Second Language Acquisition - Essay Example

Pedagogical Implications on Second Language Acquisition "Grrr!" my adult student uttered in frustration. "I've been trying to learn German for five months, but I’ve only learned little." Another student consoled her. "You shouldn’t blame yourself. You didn't start early enough." Even though the student was not aware of it, she was basing her explanation on the Critical Period Hypothesis. Critical Period Hypothesis’ Main Claims The Critical Period Hypothesis (CPH) refers to an enduring argument in language acquisition over the degree to which the ability to acquire language is biologically related to age. The hypothesis contends that there is a perfect period of time to learn a language. After the restricted time, it will be difficult. The hypothesis has been deliberated in the perspective of both first and second language acquisition, and is especially contentious in the latter. The Critical Period Hypothesis explores questions such as: "Would I be better at speaking a particular language if had I started learning it earlier?" The Critical Period Hypothesis essentially contends that language acquisition would be at its prime until around the age of 12. After this time limit, not only would learning a language be more difficult, but it would also not be as successful as one would like it to be and an individual after the age of 12 would not be able to speak a language as well as a native speaker. The theory of a critical period is also recognized in nature. An example is imprinting in ducks and geese, where it is suggested that ducklings and goslings can be influenced to adopt chickens, people, or even mechanical objects as their mothers if they encounter them within a particular small time frame after hatching. However, this seemingly well-documented instance of a critical period is now being questioned (Bongaerts and Schils, 1995). On the other hand, humans appear to have a critical period for first language acquisition, on the basis of existing evidence. Ill-fated persons who are not exposed to any language before adolescence appear incapable of correctly acquiring the syntax of their first language afterwards. Some researchers propose a critical period after which native like performance is unlikely but not ruled out (Bialystok and Hakuta, 1994). Others argue the causes, contending that psychological factors come into play as children move into puberty. The length of the period also differs greatly in various accounts. The CPH was partly made well known by the cognitive scientist Steven Pinker, in his book The Language Instinct, which maintains that acquisition of language is certain for children up to the age of six and is then compromised after then until shortly after puberty, and rarely exists thereafter" (1995). In the acquisition of second language, the best proof for the critical period hypothesis is in the learning of accent, where older students appear not to reach a native-like level (Young and Scholten, 2002). Some researchers indicate this to mean that the CPH applies only to second language phonology rather than all areas of language. However, under particular instances, native-like accent has been seen, indicating that accent is influenced by various factors, such as motivation and identification, rather than a biological restriction. Critical Discussion of CPH’s Claims It is possibly too problematic presently to reach an agreement regarding the claims of CPH, because the research that is available today cannot yet be generalized. Furthermore, the results are contradictory at times. Additionally, most of the researchers who believe that the Central Period Hypothesis is existent, attempt to support it from very different perspectives or approaches. For instance, researchers such as Lenneberg (1967) focus on the neurological development, or what happens in the brain as we grow older, from the perspective of how one brain hemisphere is used more than the other, adaptation into the active hemisphere, and cell development within the brain, correspondingly. Other researchers study the intuitive feeling and belief phenomena from the perspective changes to one's access to Universal Grammar as we grow older (DeKeyser, 2003), even though among such researchers there is much disagreement over how much one can acquire at a particular age and how much of these abilities are preserved. Therefore, though they are all advocates of one school of thought, they are nowhere near a consensus of what may affect or limit the CPH. Yet another group, including Pennfield and Roberts (1959) link the competence of languages to social factors such as identity, attitudes and motivation toward learning the target language, and acculturation. Since there are many learning methods and strategies, many developmental and social factors, and a broad variety of reasons to learn a second language, individual results in attaining language proficiency differ, as much as the individual learners differ. There appears to be an age at which acquiring a language begins to become more problematic for the second language learner. However, this is not well-defined, nor a complete truth. Likewise, it has not been proven through research. Many post-adolescent language learners have attained proficiency in a second language, for various reasons and under various surroundings. Presently, the only fact that CPH research suggests is that younger learners usually attain greater improvement in adopting a native-like or near-native pronunciation, than adult learners do. A probable explanation for the critical period is that as the brain matures, access to the universal grammar is limited. Thus, the brain uses various tools to process language. Some contend that the language acquisition device requires regular use to avoid degeneration due to aging. Others argue that the brain screens input differently during childhood, providing the language acquisition device a different type of input than what it receives in adulthood (Oyama, 1976). Present day research has also disputed the critical period altogether. In a recent research, adults learning a second language were able to process the language in the same manner that another group of adults processed their first language (Moyer, 1999). The hypothetical period is believed to carry on from birth to puberty. Throughout this period, the brain is responsive and open to language, learning rules of grammar fast through a comparatively few number of examples. After adolescence, language learning becomes more problematic. The Critical Period Hypothesis ascribes this problem to a radical change in the way that the brain processes language after puberty. This makes attaining fluency during adult age much harder than it is in childhood. The proof for such a period is little, and corroboration derives largely from analogies to other critical periods in biology such as visual development, and anecdotal observations of non-native-like acquisition in language learning (Scovel, 1969). It may finally come down to simple biology. The ability to acquire language is biologically determined. It is an essential part of a general cognitive ability. Following this line of reasoning, it may also be logical to reason out that an individual may also be able to learn a language if the brain is ready to receive this language. If language acquisition is a biological tool related directly to the left hemisphere of the brain, where language functions are located, it could be expected that the brain will allot a special place to receive this tool. In children who do not have the opportunity to live in a proper linguistic surroundings, this location in the brain is not yet formed because the brain has not been aroused to develop it. Another example related to this is left hemisphere damage. If the left hemisphere is damaged, it would take around five months to recuperate for adults. Otherwise, the individual's language abilities would suffer. This recuperation takes a longer time in children, but it is generally complete recovery. In some extreme cases, when the child is very young, acute injury and even removal of large parts of the left hemisphere did not adversely influence language acquisition (Lenneberg, 1967). It has to do with the brain’s ability to adapt to injury. When a child's brain develops, and his language abilities grow correspondingly with it, language acquisition is easy. When that certain period of time is gone, language acquisition becomes difficult. The conclusion is that human’s language learning capacities deteriorate with age, so the earlier one begins learning languages the better, but there is no specific age after which the attempt is hopeless. Insights on Pedagogical Implications In my own experience, I have seen some subjective proof that something similar to Critical Period exists, although I have also observed language learners who started learning English as an adult become highly proficient in that language. Similar to numerous other researchers and teachers in this field, I will conclude that further research is needed. However, I would like to emphasize that different people learn in different ways and that there is no one right answer regarding the correct critical period. As we grow and mature, we move away from a near native pronunciation. As a second language teacher, I have noticed that even the younger language learners do not acquire a native-like or near-native pronunciation. My students' foreign language abilities are far from being native-like. When my students speak the second language they are learning, they are not near-native pronunciation. Where then does this leave students of second languages? Is my student right, or is she misled? Can students still learn at an adult age? There is no denying the observation that children learn languages at an exceptional rate. However, the absence of regularity in the success rate of second language learning leads me to believe that the Critical Period Hypothesis is too inflexible. The hardship in learning a new language as an adult is probably a mix of a less accessible language acquisition device, a brain out of practice at tapping into it, a complicated set of input, and the self consciousness that goes with adulthood. The last reason is significant. People interact with language differently as children, because they are not as fearful of making errors because others have lesser expectations from them, resulting in a different type of language interaction. It could be because the language acquisition device processes better during these types of interactions. There is no sufficient research to make a final decisive statement, but even the most rigorous type of the Critical Learning Hypothesis does not claim that language learning is not possible in adulthood. That means that it is still dependent on any student whether she ends up mastering a foreign language or not. Many of my adult students are afraid that they are incapable of gaining fluency in a foreign language due to their slow success. But the fact that they get little to no real life exposure to the language is proof that it has less to do with age than with opportunities to interact with other people using the foreign language in real life situations. I believe that my hypothesis is worth investigating. In my view, the brain will take in language better through actual face to face interaction and faster than from books, radio, television, or other passive methods of language learning. Hence, people primarily learn language through interaction. Additionally, the situational environment affects how easily a language is learned or preserved after childhood. Without chances to utilize and speak the language on a day to day basis in an interactive setting, there will be fewer reasons for the brain to grasp the language, particularly with all the other distractions the language is competing with. Alternatively, if the language learner employs the language regularly and has that drive and motivation to improve on it, then it is more probable that it will be easier for him to learn. Based on my teaching experience, many students do not begin studying any foreign languages until they are well into adulthood. However, there are many of them who have gone on to pick up varying levels of proficiency in the foreign language. Native speakers of the foreign language sometimes praise my students’ accent and conversational depth, and express amazement at the short amount of time they have had formal studies in the language. Certainly, much of the praises are just flattery and courtesy, but it is remarkable that some of my adult students do not find language studies intimidating despite their age. Much of this can be attributed to their interest in acquiring a foreign language. The Critical Period Hypothesis suggests that the human brain is pliable, in terms of language, only for a restricted time. It is valid then to say that infants and children learn languages very effectively. However, other important facts must be considered. Firstly, children are highly motivated. They simply cannot have what they need until they develop their language skill. Crying, which is their alternative method of expression is not an efficient way of communicating. Secondly, children, especially infants, are usually not as busy as adults. It is similar when people on strict weight-loss programs are able to lose weight because they focus their whole attention and time attaining this with a trainer. They follow a strict diet, eat only nutritional food, and are constantly motivated by their trainer. This allows them to be successful because they are concentrating their time on losing weight. In contrast, young children do not have to hold a job, shop for food and supplies, balance the checkbook, or do household chores. All they do is play and enhance their communication skills. Once infants begin to learn a language, their parents, teachers, siblings all start assisting them by teaching them new words and correcting grammatical mistakes. Conversely, in many cultures, it is discourteous for adults to correct the grammar of other adults. One simply attempts to understand what is being communicated and provides a word or two to assist the person in expressing himself. Working as a foreign learning language teacher, I have observed that people who have the financial resources and a lot of commitment to learn can do remarkably well. On the other hand, people with the financial resources but have the belief that they cannot learn do unbelievably poorly. Another observation is that people open to making a lot of mistakes learn much faster. People who want to be impeccable when speaking the language, who want to know exactly what they are saying and who always try to get it right, are those that get stuck. Children have the advantage over adults in language learning, mainly because they have fewer worries and less pressure to not make mistakes. They fall down riding their bikes. They ruin the carpet pouring milk or apple juice. For every toy given to a child, two are broken in the stumble and mess of childhood play. Children are assumed to be mistake machines. They mess around with language also. After some time though it all comes together and makes sense to them. When adults have the same carefree attitude in language learning, their improvement can be remarkable. For adults, this demands humility, since they are no longer children. Thus, interest, face to face interaction and humility are keys to language learning. References Bialystok E & Hakuta K (1994) In Other Words: The Science and Psychology of Second Language Acquisition. New York: HarperCollins. Bongaerts T, Planken B & Schils E (1995) Can late learners attain a native accent in a foreign language? A test of the Critical Period Hypothesis. In Singleton D & Lengyel Z (eds) The Age Factor in Second Language Acquisition. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. pp.30-50. DeKeyser R (2003) Implicit and explicit learning. In Doughty C & Long MH (eds) The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. Malden, MA: Blackwell. pp.313–348. Lenneberg EH (1967) Biological Foundations of Language. New York: Wiley. Moyer A (1999) 'Ultimate attainment in L2 phonology: the critical factors of age, motivation, and instruction.' Studies in Second Language Acquisition 21: 81-108. Oyama S (1976) 'A sensitive period for the acquisition of a nonnative phonological system.' Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 5: 261-285. Penfield W & Roberts L (1959) Speech and Brain Mechanisms. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Pinker S (1994). The Language Instinct. New York: Morrow. Scovel T (1969) 'Foreign accents, language acquisition, and cerebral dominance.' Language Learning 19: 245-253. Young-Scholten M (2002) Orthographic input in L2 phonological development. In Burmeister P, Piske T & Rohde A (eds) An Integrated View of Language Development: Papers in Honor of Henning Wode. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier. pp.263-279. Read More