The Younger the Better in English learning practice - Essay Example

?RMTYL1 Write a detailed critical literature review of ONE of the following topics with regard to Young Learners. (If you wish to focus on a particular age range within the broad 5- 12 years old range, state the range that you wish to focus upon). The debate about whether ‘The Younger the Better’ is a well founded slogan with regard to children learning a foreign language You should refer to books and articles on the topic and discuss whether they were based upon research or the writer’s own experience, opinions and synthesis of others’ research. 1. Introduction As English has become an essential element in social success, many parents and learners are more and more eager to learn English. English has become a must, learning English is no longer an option. In many non English speaking counties, government are attempting to revise laws and educational policies to make younger learners get more exposed to the target language. At the same time, parents believe that ‘the younger the better’ when learning a second language. They spend a great deal of money to send their children to English speaking countries to enhance language ability while the learners are still young. However, there have been many arguments about the appropriate language learning period. Unlike the general thoughts of many people, some researchers have suggested adults have a better advantage in language learning. In this paper, both views of language acquisition will be introduced. First, the paper will go through research cases and researchers’ suggestions supporting ‘the younger the better’. This will be followed by studies suggesting adults' second language acquisition is more advantageous than young learners. 2. Research on Age Effects on Second Language Acquisition Since Lenneberg (1967)’s work, many studies have focused on the relationship between age and second language acquisition. Apparently, there is still no general consensus. The two opposing opinions: ‘the younger the better’ versus the adult learner of second language acquisition. In this section, I will go over some empirical studies in this field as well as their research methodology showing both opinions. 2.1 In support of ‘the younger the better’ Lenneberg (1967) was the one of the pioneer who suggested there is a ‘critical period’ for language learning. It is crucial for language learners to learn a language before puberty. Language acquisition which takes place after puberty is qualitatively different from the acquisition which takes place before puberty due to cerebral lateralization of function in the brain. In the 60s, there were not many studies done to prove the hypothesis. His claim was limited to the suggestion of the ‘critical period’ of first language acquisition. He left further research about second language acquisition to other researchers. Since Lenneberg’s (1967) study of the ‘critical period’, research concerning his work began to get much of the spotlight. Several researchers supported his study (Newport, 1990). One of the most notable works was from Curtiss(1977) about 13 year old girl named Genie. Genie was found by neighbour in Los Angeles when she was 13. She had been isolated from linguistic, social, environmental input until she was found at the age approximately at the end of the puberty. There existed no linguistic formal information when she was found, yet, she had the average intelligence of her age group. She started learning her first language at thirteen years of age. The research implications were incredible. Her performance was similar to that of average 13 year old child but she had a difficult time applying language to real life situations. Also, she needed more than five months to accomplish certain step of linguistic competence while other children of her linguistic age were able to complete the steps within 2 to 6 weeks. Even though she had five years of special training, Genie was able to speak on her own initiative and was able to understand certain degrees of complicated sentences, her language competence was still not as good as others. Many researchers use Genie’s example to support the well known slogan – ‘the younger the better’ (Johnson & Newport, 1989, 1991; Scovel, 1988). However, these studies are insufficient to make the generalization of language development and the claim that ‘the younger the better’ since linguistic competence was only one of the many characteristic that was missing from Genie's language acquisition. (Goldin-Meadow & Mylander, 1984). Oyama (1976, 1978) suggested that speed and accuracy of learning and pronunciation differ according to the age of learning. He compared age of arrival and years in English speaking countries (United States) by assessing their listening comprehension and pronunciation. Assessments were taken in both natural condition and classroom by trained judges. He measured 60 Italian speakers, between the age of 14 to 37 years old, whose second language was English according to their arrival age and number of years living in the United States by making them repeat after the noise (Oyama, 1978). However, Oyama (1978) had not found dramatic differences in their level when he compared Italian ESL (English as a second language) students who had been in United States for 5-11 years and those of who had lived for 12-18 years. In addition, Oyama (1976, 1978) suggested that there is certain ‘sensitive period’ to acquire phonological elements of the language in second language acquisition. However, there was no comparable group of this study since no research was done in an environment setting of young learners. Research about ‘the younger the better’ was usually done in terms of pronunciation and accent. Studies concerning reading or writing skills have not been considered as a major field. Ramsey and Wright (1974, also Wright and Ramsey, 1970) focused on the “cognitive/academic performance with regard to bilingual education, age and second language learning” (Cummins, 1980; 180). They had studied over 1,200 immigrant students in the Toronto school system who were learning English as a second language (ESL). The data was gathered as a part of the survey which involved 1/4 of the Toronto school system’s grade 5, 7 and 9. Ramsey and Wright (1974)’s findings prove that students who arrived in Canada at age 6 to 7 or younger suffered less in academic performance skills and were able to receive a certain degree of grade norms. Older students who came to the country at a later age, had distinct difficulties in their academic performances. The research result supported the principle 'younger is better' when learning a second language. Results were not limited to phonological performance but also other academic performance. This critical period also know as sensitive period was well accepted by researchers and teachers over the years (Brown, 1980). In spite of doubts from some researchers, critical period hypotheses are accepted by researchers as Rosansky (1975) and Krashen (1976) who were interested in cognitive linguistics and Schumann (1975) who has shown a dominant interest in affective tool. Rosansky (1975) introduces that young learners (before 12) are usually self-oriented (focus more on themselves then adults), therefore, they are able to concentrate on one thing by putting whole efforts into one. These characteristic of young learners enable them to acquire the language by focusing. So he insists that language learning after puberty period will be more difficult, if not impossible. As shown above, most of the eventual attainment measurement research for the second language acquisition concerning ages were usually focused on pronunciations and syntax (Asher & Garcia, 1969; Olson & Samuels, 1973; Oyama, 1976, 1978; Seliger, Krashen, & Ladefoged, 1975; Snow & Hoefnagel-Hohle, 1977; Patkowski, 1980). Penfield (1959) revealed that the speed of recovering of brain damage differs according to ages. He studied the difference between language recovering speed of children and adults with aphasia due to brain damage and found out that the younger the patient the faster their recover is. In addition to Piaget's view, research showed that the small children with aphasia due to loss of hemisphere function were able to accept and learn new language. Adults do not have this ability. He also anecdotally had observed his four children. He had German governess for 2 years in children’s early childhood and this enable them to re-acquire good German accent and pronunciation in their adolescence and early adulthood. This showed that younger learners have higher potential and efficient learning processes than later learners. The definite age of this period (getting more difficult in recovering) is indefinite according to researchers. It varies depending on which researcher, yet Penfield and Roberts (1959) claimed it is six years old. (Ojemann, 1991) Another finding about the critical period was introduced by Fledge, Yeni-Komshian and Liu (1999) who observed 240 native Korean speakers who had different arrival of ages. Their age of arrival (AOA) varied from 1 to 23 with all having experiences in English. The age at the time the participants were tested ranged from 17 to 47 years. They had resided at least 8 years in the United States, having had educational experience in the country. They were assessed by listeners whose English was their first language to evaluate their pronunciations and accents. 144 grammar based questions were given to evaluate their morph-syntax level. The result showed that if they had settled in United States at a younger age, they would have had not as strong of a foreign accent. However, the result of a grammar based assessment did not show much relationship between the age of arrival (AOA) and their score, yet it depended more on the education that they had received in United States. 240 numbers of participants were an adequate number of participants to observe. Controversy dictates that a one year old participant can be considered as a young learner. Perhaps, it can be argued that ‘language learning is already begun in the mother’s womb’ and ‘language learning can be added to his education after birth’. However, if a baby had moved to an English speaking country at the age of 1 or 2, it would be a question if she or he is Korean. Shim (1993) observed three different age groups (3-8, 9-17 & 20-30). The study revealed that the critical period is before age 3. However, there are things which were neglected in his research. The study did not consider individual differences, and only reported mean scores. The age groups are too wide. For example, 20 to 30 is understandable due to their brain lateralization, but age 9 to 17 makes a whole different story according to other studies. ( Fldge et al., 1999; Ojemann, 1991; Oyama, 1976, 1978; Penfield & Roberts, 1959; Ramsey & Wright, 1974; Romansky, 1975). The participants, who arrived United States at an early age, tend to speak more English than their first language which also should have been taken in to account. Schumann (1975) suggested that the reason for the difficulty in learning after linguistic puberty is not only because of neurological maturation but also due to social, and psychological maturation. The reason introduced for the 'younger the better' by Schumann (1975) was the motivation and the tendency to show off in similar age groups. The tendency of these two characteristics allows them to be more interactive and involves real communication which let them practice and become familiar with the language. This is also relevant to affective filter hypothesis proposed by Krashen (1979) and the inhibition of adults mentioned by Brown (1980). Krashen (1979) proposed that various elements can affect language learning in which motivation is an important factor. By studying/analyzing the number of cases and research, he suggested that the adult benefits at the very beginning stages of language learning but the 'younger the better' benefits in the long term accomplishment. Brown (1980) highlights the ego of young learners and reveals that younger learners’ low egocentric (this let inhibition grow as they grow up) helps them to enhance their language proficiency. 2.2 In opposition of ‘the younger the better’ As mentioned previously, there are some researchers and teachers who are opposed to ‘the younger the better’. Some of them admit that there might be some advantages in teaching a second language to the children. However, they claim that this does not relate all the factors of language learning so that young learners will benefit from language learning in early ages. A number of researches emerged after ‘the younger the better’ slogan had been brought into the lime light. These claims have been continuously confirmed. Considerable work in 1970s includes work from Snow & Hoefnagel-Hohle (1977, 1978), which was also mentioned in McLaughlin (1984, 1985). [The study showed that the biological, psychological and cognition development influence any second language acquisition in older age showed to be more efficient and faster learners.] Snow & Hoefnagel-Hohle (1977) observed and compared English speaking subjects learning Dutch in Holland by dividing them into two groups, one group, age 5 to 31, in laboratory (Group A), another group, age 3 to 60 in a natural environment (Group B). The group A was composed of 136 English speaking children who were asked to repeat 5 Dutch words after immediate stimulus of 20 times exposure. Group B were composed of 47 English speaking subjects were tested on various elements of language learning (phonology, morphology, syntax, vocabulary) (Chun, 1980). Snow & Hoefnagel-Hohle (1977) investigated the performance of the subjects 3 times in 4 to 5 months intervals. They were asked to repeat 8 different words, once by simple repetition and once by a picture stimulus. The result of the study revealed that the adult learners performed better than the younger learners. The oldest performed the best and the youngest performed the worst (Young learners did not have ability to respond to short stimulus). Including the pronunciation performance tasks which was strongly valued by several researchers because the younger they begin to learn language the better the pronunciation. Short- term observation showed that adults learn faster and become used to the environment faster than children. Therefore, due to the result of this longitudinal observation, they suggested since adult learners need a shorter time to understand and achieve language acquisition, sooner adult learner will surpass the children when exposed to natural environments; even though the study claims adult advantage when there was little data to support the comparison of their claim. (Marinova-Todd et al, 2000). Besides the study of Snow & Hoefnagel-Hohle (1977), experiments which were conducted, indicated that adults are significantly better than younger learners. (Mccandless & Winitz, 1986). Winitz (1981) questioned age relation in second language acquisition by exposing Mandarin to native English speakers. He focused on the tones of Mandarin in particular which were considered more difficult for foreign learners. In his study, the older learner showed higher level than the younger learners which made a larger gap as the study took place. Olson and Samuels (1981) compared 20 elementary schools, 20 junior high and college groups to experiment conflicting arguments of age affecting second language acquisition (this case focused on pronunciations). They gave instructions regarding the pronunciations during a period of 2 weeks by offering 10 sessions of 15 – 25 minute classes. The result showed significant differences between elementary and junior high; and between college and junior high. College students scored significantly higher than elementary students. There is doubt whether two weeks were enough to conduct a study and come up with such conclusions. As the studies from researchers who claims adults advantages have much to do with ‘shorter reaction time’ of adults (Snow & Hoefnagel-Hohle, 1977, 1978; McLaughlin, 1984, 1985), it is a question whether elementary level students would have done better after longer exposure and instruction of the language. One study including this matter is from Ervin-Tripp (1974), Ervin-Tripp (1974) reported the older the learners the better in phonological competence. Ervin-Tripp (1974) compared learners from two different age groups for a period of nine months: 4 – 9 years-old, and 7-9 years old. Subjects were 31 English speaking children who were studying French as a second language in French peaking Switzerland. She observed by measuring learners’ comprehension through acting out responses, and translations. She also discovered that older children learnt faster than younger children in all subject matter (syntax, phonology and morphology). The study seemed reliable due to its observation period of time but her subjects were considerably all young learners when compare to other researchers’ subjects. Fathman’s (1975) work is significantly done in this matter. She compared 6 - 10 year old group to 11 - 15 year old group from different first language background. After 1 - 3 year old of observation in United States, 200 subjects were tested by using Second Language Oral Production English Test (SLOPE Test) and picture description. 11 - 15 year old group scored relatively higher than the younger learners in morphology and syntax. The study also revealed that 6 - 10 year old group was superior on pronunciation which may also lead researchers to think about the “length of time”. If younger learners are having difficulty in morphology and syntax and are expected to improve as their reaction time decreases, what would be the ideal length of time to allow them to learn?. Also, it cannot be neglected that older learners need more time to improve their already existing pronunciation; and may catch up with younger learners’ native-like pronunciation by the time younger learners enhance their morphology and syntax ability. Ekstrand (1976) surveyed immigrant children in Sweden who came from 36 different countries and learning Swedish as their second language. 2,189 subjects were measured in listening comprehension, reading, free writing, pronunciation and speaking. The result showed that older children did better than younger children and their second language acquisition had linear relationship with age. Furtado & Webster (1991) had insisted that they had not found any indication to support the age relation to second language acquisition. They compared two kinds of bilingual group – one group of adult bilinguals who became bilingual before age 6 (early bilinguals) another group of late bilinguals. A significant finding of this observation was that both early and late bilinguals showed similar cerebral lateralization interference patterns in spite of their second language. They concluded by suggesting age was not the most important element which effects second language acquisition. Similarly, Bialystok & Miller (1999) observed groups of native speaker of Spanish and Chinese. They focused on the period of arrival of English speaking country by drawing line between learners’ age of 15 – one group arriving before 15 and another after 15. There were oral versus written stimulus presented as a main effect. The result showed age and performance was negatively related. Especially for Chinese learners, there were no differences found between early and late learners. However, this might be due to un-similarity of their first and second language. It would have been more significant and reliable if the study included language distance when analyzing /comparing Spanish and Chinese. Many researches were done to prove adult advantages in second language acquisition by studying adults only. Birdsong (1992) and Bongaerts et al. (1997) showed possible adults advantages through their works. Birdsong (1992) observed 20 native speakers and 20 non native speakers who were tested by a grammatical judgment test. The average age of the subjects was between 35-40. Some of them showed significant performance as native speakers, even though their age of arrival affected their grammatical performance (Marinova-Todd et al, 2000). Bongaerts et al. (1997) studied 5 adult learners, 19 years old or later, studying English as well. They had high exposure of British English . These late adult learners had received concentrated education in a sound system, perception and production of English. Their performance was rather astonishing by showing comparable pronunciation to those who acquired English as their mother tongue. The authors also observed 11 Dutch speaking English learners as university level foreign language experts. According to Bongaerts et al. (1997), the subjects were successful and highly motivated learners and highly motivated learners. 9 of them were English teachers and therefore considered it essential to speak without a foreign accent. Even though they were post puberty language learners, the result revealed that some of them (5 out of 11) had better Standard English accents compared to native speakers. However, this study only had 11 subjects who were highly motivated learners. That is to say, this result itself may not be enough to generalize the adult advantages in language learning. Also, it might bring out the different result if the first language of the subjects were not Dutch but Korean, Japanese or Chinese. Likewise, while some researchers claim that learning language is better in their younger age due to their cerebral lateralization issue, the others support the adults’ advantage with other elements affecting language learning like length of residence (Asher & Garcia, 1969). Ehrman & Oxford (1995) and Schumann (1975) reported that language learning is closely related to the ‘willingness to learn’ and ‘how much learners are attached to the culture’. So that, learner should not only learn the language but also learn their cultures. Therefore, he suggests that younger learners do not have advantages in language learning if they do not have previous access to the target language culture. Ehrman & Oxford (1995) introduced that age is not the main element affecting learners’ proficiency. They highlighted that elements as cognitive aptitude, beliefs about self, reading skills and education are important variables. Ioup et al. (1994) added up another documented case study of learners age over puberty period acquiring native like competence. Ioup, Boustagui, El Tigi and Moselle (1994) observed two adult learners – Julie and Laura who were learning Arabic. They both had same L1 (first language) background (English) and they were Egypt residents when the research took place. Julie moved from Britain (British English) to Cairo at the age of 21 when she married an Egyptian man, she did not have any formal knowledge of Arabic. She was 47 at the time of the study. She had learnt Arabic from informal exposure in Cairo. Laura, however, was a native English speaker from United States of America (American English) and had received continuous formal exposure to Arabic in school. After her 10 years of staying in Egypt, she married an Egyptian man. Julie and Laura were naturally immersed in their L2 (second language) society and culture. They were tested in 6 different areas including both receptive and productive tests. (free speaking measured by native speakers, accent measuring test, grammatical translation test. Result shows that subjects achieved native like proficiency in both grammar and pronunciation (in some areas performing better than native speakers). However, the number of subjects were restricted (n=2) and there are some limitation in that both subjects were sharing same L1. 3. Conclusion As shown above, widely known as well designed slogan ‘The younger the better’ had been favoured by many scholars (Penfield, 1959; Lenneberg, 1967; Asher & Garcia, 1969; Wright and Ramsey, 1970; Olson & Samuels, 1973; Oyama, 1976, 1978; Seliger, Krashen, & Ladefoged, 1975; Snow & Hoefnagel-Hohle, 1977; Cummins, 1980; Patkowski, 1980; Goldin-Meadow & Mylander, 1984; Scovel, 1988; Johnson & Newport, 1989, 1991; Komshian and Liu, 1999) while some researchers claim adults advantages in language learning (Asher & Garcia, 1969; Ervin-Tripp, 1974; Fathman, 1975; Ekstrand, 1976; Snow & Hoefnagel-Hohle, 1977, 1978; Chun, 1980; Marinova-Todd et al, 2000; Mccandless & Winitz, 1986; Winitz, 1981; Olson and Samuels, 1981; McLaughlin, 1984, 1985; Furtado & Webster, 1991; Birdsong, 1992; Ioup et al. 1994; Ehrman & Oxford, 1995) Bongaerts et al. 1997; Bialystok & Miller, 1999). Data from many studies show the consequences of a critical period theory in second language acquisition by some supports and the other oppose. Age criterion in language acquisition, compare to its fame, do not have generalized conclusions concerning which is better – the younger vs. the older. However, there seem to have been similar conclusions that older learners are effective learners but since the younger learners have more time to enhance their language level, ultimate eventual attainment might vary - among individual differences. References Asher, J., & Garcia, R. (1969). The optimal age to learn a foreign language. Modern Language Journal, 53, 334-341. Bialystok, E., & Miller, B. (1999). The problem of age in second language acquisition: Influences from language, task, and structure. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 2, 127–145. Birdsong, D. (1992). Ultimate attainment in second language acquisition. Language,68 (4), 706-755. 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, 19, 447-465. Brown, H. D. (1980). The Optimal Distance Model of Second Language Acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 14 (2), 157-164. Cummins, J. (1980). The Cross-Lingual Dimensions of Language Proficiency: Implications for Bilingual Education and the Optimal Age Issue. TESOL Quarterly, 14 (2), 175-187.   Curtiss, S. (1977). Genie: A psycholinguistic study of a modem day “wild child.” New York: Academic Press. Chun, J. (1980). A Survey of Research in Second Language Acquisition. The Modern Language Journal, 64 (3), 287-296. Ehrman, M., & Oxford, R. (1995). Cognition plus: Correlates of language learning success. Modern Language Journal, 79, 67-89. Ekstrand, L. (1976). Age and length of residence as variables related to the adjustmentof migrant children, with special reference to second language learning. In G. Nickel (Ed.) Proceedings of the Fourth International Congress of Applied Linguistics. 3, 179-197. Ervin-Tripp, S. (1974). Is second language learning like the first? TESOL Quarterly, 8 (2), 111-127. Fathman, A. K. (1975). The relationship between age and second language learning productive ability. Language Learning, 25, 2. Fathman, A. K. (1976). Variables Affecting the Successful Learning of English as a Second Language. TESOL Quarterly, 10 (4), 433-44. Fledge, J. E., Yeni-Komshian, G. H., & Liu, S. (1999). Age Constraints on Second-Language Acquisition. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 78-104. Furtado, J., & Webster, W. (1991). Concurrent language and motor performance in bilinguals: A test of the age of acquisition hypothesis. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 45, 448-461. Goldin-Meadow, S., & Mylander, C. (1984). Gestural Communication in Deaf Children: The Effects and Noneffects of Parental Input on Early Language Development. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 49 (3,4), 1-151. Inhelder, B., & Piaget, J. (1958). The Growth of Logical Thinking from Childhood to Adolescence. New York: Basic Books. 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, 16, 73-98. 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 (1), 60-99. Johnson. J.S., & Newport. E.L. (1991). Critical period effects on universal properties of language: The status of subjacency in the acquisition of a second language. Cognition, 39 (3), 215-258. Krashen, S. D. (1976). Formal and informal linguistic environments in language, learning. TESOL Quarterly 10, 157-168. Krashen, S. D., & Terrell, T. D. (1983). The Natural Approach: Language Acquisition in the Classroom. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Lenneberg, E. (1967). Biological foundations of language. New York: Wiley. Marinova-Todd, S. H., Marshall, D. B., & Snow, C. E. (2000). Three misconceptions about age and L2 learning. TESOL QUARYERLY, 34 (1), 9-34. McCandless, P., & Winitz, H. (1986). Test of Pronunciation Following One Year of Comprehension Instruction in College German. The Modern Language Journal, 70 (4), 355-362. McLaughlin, B. (1984). Second-language acquisition in childhood: Vol. 1. Preschool children. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. McLaughlin, B. (1985). Second-language acquisition in childhood: Vol. 2. School-age children. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Newport, E. L. (1990). Maturational constraints on language learning. Cognitive Science, 14 (1), 11-28. Ojemann, G. A. (1991). Cortical Organization of Language. The Journal of Neuroscience, 7 I(8), 2281-2287. Olson, L., & Samuels, S. (1973). The relationship between age and accuracy of foreign language pronunciation. Journal of Educational Research, 66, 263-267. Oyama, S. (1976). 'A sensitive period for the acquisition of a non-native phonologicalsystem'. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 5, 261-285. Oyama, S. (1978). "The sensitive period and comprehension of speech', Working Paperson Billingham, 16, 1-18. Patkowski, M. (1980). The sensitive period for the acquisition of syntax in a second language. Language Learning, 30, 449-472. Penfield, W. (1959). The learning of languages. In W. Penfield & L. Roberts, Speech and brain mechanisms. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Penfield, W., Roberts, L. (1959). Speech and brain mechanisms. Princeton: Princeton UP. Ramsey, C. A., & Wright, E. N. (1974). Age and second language learning. The Journalof Social Psychology, 94, 115-121. Rosansky, E. J. (1975). The critical period for the acquisition of language: Some cognitive developmental considerations. Working Papers on Bilingualism, 6, 92-102. Scovel, T. (1988). A Time to Speak: A Psycholinguistic Inquiry into the Critical Period for Human Speech. New York: Harper & Row. Schumann, J. (1975). Affective factors and the problem of age in second language acquisition. Language Learning, 25, 209-235. Seliger, H., Krashen, S., & Ladefoged, P. (1975). Maturational constraints in the acquisition of a native-like accent in second language learning. Language Sciences, 36, 20-22. Shim, R. J. (1993). Sensitive periods for second language acquisition: A reaction-time study of Korean-English bilinguals. Ideal, 6, 43-64. Snow, C. E., & Hoefnagel-Hohle, M. (1977). Age differences in pronunciation of foreign sounds. Language and Speech, 20, 357-365. Snow, C. E., & Hoefnagel-Hohle, M. (1978). The critical period for language acquisition: Evidence from second language learning. Child Development, 49, 1114- 1128. Wright, E. N., & Ramsey, C. A. (1970). Students of non-Canadian origin: Age on arrival, academic achievement & ability. Research Report #88, Toronto Board of Education. Read More