The Evidence of Debate Ideas to a Critical Period Effect - Essay Example

What is the Evidence of Debate Ideas to A Critical Period (CP) Effect? And What Are The Flaws? Introduction There have been extensive discussions held in connection to the concept of the critical period hypothesis in the educational fields of psycholinguistics, cognitive science and language acquisition in the recent past and the main center of discussion being on how a person’s age is linked to their ability to acquire language. According to the hypothesis, the acquisition of language is determined by the ideal window of time taken in a linguistically rich background, which is also a determination of the difficulty that has been experienced in the acquisition process of language. Various studies have been largely conducted with the basis of debating on this hypothesis and the ideas that affect the critical period. Subsequently, there have been studies conducted too with a view to assessing the flaws that have surrounded this hypothesis, particularly in relation to the selective overview of the theoretical issues and empirical findings that relate to the question of the second language acquisition and a person’s age (White, 2003). In this study, the concentration point shall be laid on the flaws that have been experienced with in relation to the ideas of the critical period effect. To achieve this, a degree of familiarity has been assumed on the familiarity of readers in connection to specific linguistic structures that relate to this hypothesis. Subsequently, it is assumed that the audience is well informed of the methodology in relation to the critical period effect. Evidence of debate ideas to a critical period effect In discussing the critical period debate, publications that have been made on the same shall form the basis of the analysis taking into consideration the availability of the concepts that have been geared towards the support for the hypothesis. For instance, according to Birdsong (2006), an understanding into the debate of critical period effect requires that brain based data and the behavior of individuals be discussed in relation to the cognitive neuro-functioning and neurocognitive aging of persons. His first argument is that there is a demonstrably different outcome in the acquisition of a second language among adults in comparison to the acquisition of the first language among children. A departure from this basic observation is what has triggered the attempts by various researchers to seek for an understanding of the age-related effects of acquiring a second language based on the hypothesis of the critical period. According to Qingxin (2012), there is no existence of a critical/sensitive learning period for the second language. The argument in this study is that while a critical period exists for the acquisition of the first language by an individual, the same cannot be held true for the second language. Instead, the likelihood of complications arising based on the same would be high considering that the brain’s capacity to acquire a second new language would be diminishing with the passage of time or age of an individual. This aspect, thus, brings out the perspective of the debate that has mostly been centered on the methodologies that are being used to promote native fluency and limitation of proficiency. Subsequently, the study by Qingxin opens grounds for the need of realization into the understanding of the relevance of the critical period to the practice and policy availability in education. Hence, in seeking to address the concept of critical period effect, the main questions relate to the availability of the critical period, whether it is for a single period and the implications of the same to the acquisition of a second language. This argument is supported by that which has been held that there is a significant difference in the acquisition of language between adults and children (Flege et al., 1999.p.74-104). Another basis of argument or discussion in relation to the concept of critical period effect has been that of the role played by age and the significance to the end state. For instance, in defining the age, would consideration need to be made for the implications of the same to the second language, the age for the critical period and the implications of the same to the teaching of a second language? Numerous studies have been coined with the issue of age as the key subject matter and each of these studies have all tried to refine the hypothesis in the best possible way. Currently, there are two fronts being used to argue the case for the age maturation and the effect to the critical period. These are the exercise and maturation state hypotheses. According to the former hypothesis, the argument being made is that the initial aptitudes for languages is as a result of the maintenance in the use of the critical period effect in acquiring a second language before it can disappear. In the latter case, the critical period effect would easily relate to the fact that, despite the frequency of the aptitudes, a stage of dormancy and uselessness will be attained with the maturation of a person’s age. Therefore, inference can be made on this to the extent that the ultimate level of the attainment and the initial acquisition rate would be affected by the age of an individual. Subsequently, the acquisition is greatly dependent on the sensitivity of the periods that govern the acquisition of language, whether first or second (Hakuta et al., 2003.p.31-34). However, as a finality, there has been no denial made for the reality of the typical differences that exist in relation to the language developmental differences sequence and the attainment of mean cognitive factors for the acquisition of a second language. This means that the age that a person begins to learn a second language would directly be related to the ultimately attained success after the variance in use of the second language. Finally, debate has been largely dwelt on the characterization of the critical periods in the learning of a second language. In this, researchers have argued that the characterization of the critical periods will alter the structure of the instantiations. Second, to assure the normality between two individuals, there must be a normative description of the same as governed by the endogenous factors. Flaws to the ideas of the critical period effect The center stage for this study shall be on the flaws or criticisms that are associated with the idealizing of the critical period effect. These criticism or flaws mostly arise out of the notable problems in relation to the counter evidence to the hypothesis of the critical period. To a greater context, the issue of the age has been the main subject matter in the understanding of the origin of these flaws (Rothman, 2008.p.1063-1088). The first observable flaw to this effect is in relation to the disagreements that have existed on whether there is an observed pattern of explanation for classifying the functions into either as a result of nature or nurture. Subsequently, this critical period effect is flawed based on the fact that it does not subjectively identify the cause for the less motivation for the adults in acquiring a second language or at least the reasons for spending less time on the tasks. This hypothesis is also flawed based on the maturational constraints that exist in relation to the second language. Consequently, the critical period effect does not provide elaborations to the ultimate attainment and concerning rate for the acquisition. The empirical studies that researchers have conducted in this line of study point out to the fact that, the complexity and controversies encountered in the acquisition of a second language result from the implied absolute abilities and the potentiality for the ultimate attainment. While the critical period for the collocation and lexical abilities end at varied times for all individuals, the effect is not explained for the persistence of errors that are encountered by the learners, as well as, the loss of capacity in the stated areas based on the ability to recognize illegal and legal semantic expressions (DeKeyser, 2000.p.499-533). Consequently, this critical period effect can be largely rejected based on several grounds, qualitative and quantitative. Such include the capacity loss in acquiring language that typically are age related factors and the variability in the social circumstances that are highly variable in the determination of the stable patterns of the language acquisition standards. According to Long (2005), the pointing of the methodological problems of the critical period effect to the inevitability of the confounded age exposure of learners, is the key point for the development of the differences in the ultimate attainment of the acquisition. Subsequently, the study points out to the failure to select appropriate choices of subjects as the cause for the counter-evidence of the questionable relevance that the critical period possesses. Additionally, the author notes that the purported theories that seek to solve the second language acquisition cannot be able to achieve the same considering the rivalry in the provided explanations. By the fact that still age-related outcome differences are critical to the period, the reference point is not strongly engaged in the comparative assessment of the available theories in support of the critical period effect (Hopp, 2010.p.901-931). In another study by Johnson & Newport (1989), the restriction of the acquisition of a second language based on the critical period, does not result in an increase in the competence of the behavioral domain thus, failing to monotonically increase the language development. Another flaw in this critical period effect is that of the presentation of the appropriate language acquisition stimuli. It is largely noted that the failure to achieve the second language until after a later date would result in the inability of an individual to attain the full language command, particularly in its grammatical systems. Subsequently, while it is possible for a learner to understand a second language, it may be extremely hard for them to gain access to underlying rules that govern the access to the language from the positive input only. Additionally, while there are linear relationships between the ages and brain volumes of individuals in accessing the subsequent language, it is exceptionally difficult to determine the difference that lies between the cognitive values and the brain capacities of the individuals (DeKeyser, 2000.p.499-533). Finally, while the critical period effect provides for a morphosyntactic understanding of language to the children, the same is not true for adults. This is because it becomes difficult to explain on how the domain mechanisms that aid in the acquisition of language, especially given that the first language grammar is a linguistic-based model for the second language. This presents the uncontroversial notion that the critical period will greatly be definitive of the differences in acquisition of a second language and access to the sophisticated language and semantic syntax (Birdsong & Molis, 2001.p.235-249). Subsequently, a critical period effect on a second language acquisition does not coherently show how the differences in the first and second language are harmoniously co-existing. This takes into consideration the optionality and observable optionality of the highly proficient second language learners. Conclusion The context of this study has been widely split into two major sections. In the first section, the study presents the likely debates that have been conducted by the relevant organizations and researchers in determining the effect of the critical period to acquisition of a second language, particularly for the adults. The observable prominence is laid upon the flaws that have been noted in the various studies piloted about the attainment of the second language by adults. This takes into consideration in relation to the Lenneberg studies about the acquisition of language from infancy to adulthood within a specified time frame (Mayberry & Lock, 2003). One notable aspect in this is that there is a limited time in the biological or maturational process that individuals take to be optimally sensitive to a particular type of language input. References List BIRDSONG, D. (2006). Age and second language acquisition and processing: A selective overview. Language Learning, 56(s1), 9-49. BIRDSONG, D., & MOLIS, M. (2001). On the evidence for maturational constraints in second-language acquisition. Journal of memory and language, 44(2), 235-249. DEKEYSER, R. M. (2000). The robustness of critical period effects in second language acquisition. Studies in second language acquisition, 22(04), 499-533. FLEGE, J. E., YENI-KOMSHIAN, G. H., & LIU, S. (1999). Age constraints on second-language acquisition. Journal of memory and language, 41(1), 78-104. HAKUTA, K., BIALYSTOK, E., & WILEY, E. (2003). Critical evidence a test of the critical-period hypothesis for second-language acquisition. Psychological Science, 14(1), 31-38. HOPP, H. (2010). Ultimate attainment in L2 inflection: Performance similarities between non-native and native speakers. Lingua, 120(4), 901-931. 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. LONG, M. (2005). Problems with supposed counter-evidence to the Critical Period Hypothesis. International review of applied linguistics in language teaching, 43(4), 287-317. MAYBERRY, R. I., & LOCK, E. (2003). Age constraints on first versus second language acquisition: Evidence for linguistic plasticity and epigenesis. Brain and language, 87(3), 369-384. QINGXIN, Z. (2012). Is There A Critical Period For Second Language Acquisition?. International Proceedings of Computer Science & Information Technology, 43. ROTHMAN, J. (2008). Why All Counter‐Evidence to the Critical Period Hypothesis in Second Language Acquisition Is not Equal or Problematic. Language and Linguistics Compass, 2(6), 1063-1088. WHITE, L. (2003). Second language acquisition and universal grammar. Cambridge University Press. Read More