Age Factor in Learning a Second Language: The Critical Period Hypothesis - Research Paper Example

CRITICAL LEARNING PERIOD The popular belief that children are much better off in terms of learning a foreign second language as compared to the adult learners, as proposed by the critical period hypothesis has garnered wide spread criticisms, as well as support and hence has been a highly debatable issue. Furthermore concept such as native like proficiency in terms of learning a foreign language also, invariably forms the basis of such debates. This paper discusses in detail, the concept of critical period hypothesis as proposed by Lennerberg and the various views and counterviews which followed – both in support of as well as challenging the hypothesis. The paper also includes a detailed section which analyses the findings and presents a fair view of the scenario and the issues that dominate this particular branch of linguistic research. Contents Sr. # Topic Pg. # 1. Introduction 2 2. The Critical Period Hypothesis 3 3. Views and Counterviews 7 4. Discussion and Reflection 11 5. Analysis 13 6. Conclusion 15 References 16 1. Introduction Adults are regarded to exceed in virtually every field of learning, on account of the presence of highly developed cognitive skills, as compared to children. However, with regard to language learning, children seem to have a better edge. There are innumerable instances where children have been able to learn a second language faster than adults and achieve native-like expertise, while in case of adults such a competence is rarely observed. It is on account of this very reason that issue regarding the existence of a certain sensitive / critical period of learning exists among individuals which fosters language development. Researchers and academic scholars as well as general observers have noted that children – up to a certain age, have a better grasp of learning languages – both native as well as foreign / second language, than their adult counterparts. During this period their language learning skills are heightened and once this period lapses, their skills begin to fade, and acquiring native-like proficiency in language learning becomes all the more difficult, beyond a certain age. However there are several criticisms and contradictory views offered by others. In response to the critical period for language learning, certain researchers have opposed the hypothesis, stating that native-like skills can be found in certain adult learners with regard to second language. Yet another group of researchers have stated that over and above the critical period of language learning, there are other factors which also play an important role in learning a language a second language. These include sociological, psychological as well as physiological factors. This paper analyzes, explores and investigates the various factors that help in development of a second language and the role, impact and consequences of critical period in second language acquisition, as observed in popular literature. 2. The Critical Period Hypothesis The Critical Hypothesis states that there is a fixed / limited period within which an individual can acquire language learning skills. This period lasts till puberty after which because of the maturational process which takes place in the brain, language learning becomes difficult for adults as compared to the children. This hypothesis was initially put forward by Lenneberg (1967), and Penfield and Roberts (1959) and was eventually supported and criticized by many, thus making it a highly debated topic in the field of linguistics and cognitive science. 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 labored effort. Foreign accents cannot be overcome easily after puberty” (Pp. 176) There is a growing body of literature which supports and challenges this hypothesis various issues such as the nature of this phenomenon – i.e. whether the ‘period’ stated in the hypothesis is critical, sensitive or optimal in nature; the causes behind such a decline in language learning post puberty – i.e. whether it occurs on account of maturational factors or cognitive factors or other factors; the exact onset and completion times of such learning blocks etc. The hypothesis that there exists a critical period for learning a language, has been discussed widely with regard to the first as well as second language acquisition process. According to some researchers there is a huge difference between learning a first language and learning a foreign or second language (Bley-Vroman 1989, Schachter 1996) and the critical period hypothesis i.e. the age factor is applicable to only acquisition of second languages. The same is discussed in the following section. CPH and Second Language Acquisition: Various researchers have debated the age factor, with regard to second or foreign language acquisition ever since the conception of the critical period hypothesis in 60’s. Certain researchers have observed and subsequently claimed that the younger learners have a clear advantage over the older learners in terms of learning a second / foreign language in the long run. Thus although the adult learners may seem to have the initial advantage, ultimately the younger learners surpass the adult learners in terms of second language acquisition and that they have higher skills in learning a second language as compared to the older learners (Krashen, 1975; Long, 1990) Such an observation however is regarded as a vital evidence in support of the critical period hypothesis, although Bongaerts (2003) has expressed the need for further evidences to support the critical period hypothesis. Such evidences are based on the assumption that the critical period is an outcome of biological changes. Hence according to this belief, there should be a significant difference between the L2 skills of learners in different age groups (Bialystok 1997). Although it has been widely observed that there does exist a difference in language skills among adult learners, who often fail to acquire native-like efficiency, there does exist an equal amount of evidence which shows that in certain cases the adults have successfully acquired native-like proficiency in a foreign language. Hence this hypothesis was challenged by Birdsong and Molis (2001) who claimed that if there does exist a critical period and the language learning is indeed affected by biological changes then there should be consistency in findings – of language related skills of the adult learners. According to Lenneberg (1967) the critical period for learning a second language exists between the age of two to puberty because according to him, past the age of twelve, the changes that take place in the brain make it impossible to pass the language functions from the left hemisphere to the right. Although 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. There are wide ranging differences among researchers regarding the age of offset of the Critical period suggesting that there may be different critical periods for different elements of language learning. The same has been described in the following table: Source: Singleton (2005) 3. Views and Counterviews The debate whether age factor alone is the sole factor that influences second language acquisition process among adult learners is ongoing and wide. The various claims, assumptions and hypothesis presented by various researchers on the basis of their extensive study on the subject are discussed below. 3.1. Arguments in favor of CPH Various studies have aimed to provide a link between the age of acquisition of a second / foreign language by an individual and the age by which they achieve the ultimate attainment of such second / foreign language. In these studies it was proposed that if there was an apparent difference between the proficiency of language among the learners who were exposed to the second language before puberty as compared to those who learnt the language post puberty, then such a difference is the purely on account of the critical period. Various studies and researches have been undertaken to substantiate such a hypothesis. According to a 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. According to Long (1990) and Patkowski (1994) native-like accuracy can never be achieved by adult learners, if they are not exposed to the language during childhood or before the age of 12 and / or attainment of puberty. Scovel (1988) claims that the age factor in terms of learning a foreign language plays a major role especially with regard to pronunciations, and states that unlike other aspects of language learning, phonological production is the only element which is highly influenced by neuromuscular factor and hence achieving native like pronunciations is difficult for adult learners. He further contends that although the attainment of native like accuracy in a second language among adult learners cannot be completely ruled out, such an accuracy can only be attained by very few exceptional learners probably among one in thousand. In yet another series of studies conducted by researchers such as Coppieters (1987) and Hyltenstam et al (2003) it was observed that the L2 learners were not able to successfully achieve native like proficiency and in fact were far away from such a competence. The wide range of studies conducted by Johnson and Newport along with the findings presented by the studies conducted by other researchers such as Oyama (1978) and Patkowski (1980), suggest that there exists a critical period which influences the language learning especially with regard to the SL or L2 acquisition in areas such as morphosyntactic structures, pronunciation, phonological differences in speech etc. among others. The key observations made by the supporters of critical period include such claims as the apparent differences between child and adult L2 learners with regard to attainment of native like competency, the existence of a non linear, bounded relationship between age onset and the ultimate attainment of native like proficiency in a foreign language in confirmation with the geometric features of the CP hypothesis; the differences in the developmental sequences between child and adult L2 learners etc. However the same have been refuted by the critics of the CP hypothesis, which is discussed below. 3.2. Arguments against the CPH Regardless of the strong and overwhelming evidence provided by researchers such as Johnson and Newport and the likes, in support of the critical period for second language acquisition there are various questions raised by the critics with regard to the existence of such a period. According to Long (1990): the easiest and safest possible alternative to counter the claims made in support of the critical period with regard to second language acquisition among adult learners, is to offer evidence through research, whereby adult learners have successfully mastered the second language including achievement of the native-like proficiency, which has been claimed by the supporters of the critical period hypothesis, to be unattainable beyond a certain age. Accordingly various studies conducted by Bialystok (1997), Birdsong and Molis (1992), White and Genesee (1996) etc have challenged the critical period hypothesis. In order to ascertain the credibility of the critical period hypothesis White and Genesee (1996) conducted a study comprising of eighty nine speakers of English as a second language, and tested them on the basis of grammar skills, question formation skills, and interview skills whereby the participants were evaluated on the basis of their performance on the above listed categories. Their performance was assessed on the basis of pronunciation, morpho-syntax, fluency, as well as vocabulary and compared with that of the native speakers. The results derived were compared to ascertain the level of expertise achieved by the L2 learners as compared to the native speakers. The results revealed that the L2 learners excelled in all aspects and their performance in all the tasks given to them was similar to that of the native speakers in terms of grammar, vocabulary, speed, accuracy etc and in many cases their performance was indistinguishable from that of the native speakers in the written tasks. While the study conducted by White and Genesee (1996) mostly focused on the level of grammatical accuracy of the L2 learners, the accuracy in terms of pronunciation of a set of advanced learners, was tested and measured by another study conducted by Bongaerts, van Summeren, Planken, and Schils (1997). It was observed that although the adult L2 learners were successfully able to achieve native like proficiency in terms of all other areas of language including vocabulary, morphology as well as syntax, the adult L2 learners lagged behind in terms of pronunciation and most of the L2 learners had a hint of a heavy foreign accent despite excelling in all other aspects of language learning. Thus dismissing the claims that there exists a critical period of language acquisition researchers such as Bongerts et al (1997), Bellingham (2000), Nikolov (2000) and Neufeld (2001) offered substantial and credible evidences which challenged such a belief and further contended that such a period only affects a part of language learning process, mostly pronunciation, while the rest of the parts such as morphology, vocabulary, syntax, and grammatical accuracy can be achieved by the L2 learners to equal native like competence. 4. Discussion and Reflection From the above discussion it is clear that there exists arguments and credible evidences both in support of as well as challenging the critical period hypothesis, however the element central to all these arguments is the ‘attainment of native like proficiency’ in L2 learners. Thus the age factor with regard to critical period hypothesis can neither be substantiated nor be dismissed but can be re-conceptualized by taking into consideration the element of native-like competence as the fundamental factor. The proposition is supported by DeKeyser (2000) who states that the presence of overwhelming evidence both in support of and against the CP hypothesis signifies the need for reframing the concept, rather than searching for and providing further evidence. According to DeKeyser (2000) individuals have certain implicit and explicit language specific mechanisms. The implicit mechanisms are present during the critical period while the explicit develop with age, and individuals use these mechanisms during different stages in their lives to learn a second / foreign language. He further argues that the low level of native like proficiency found among adult L2 learners is on account of their inability to effectively access such mechanisms. In order to support his hypothesis DeKeyser conducted a study comprising of fifty seven adult Hungarian learners of English in the U.S. who were tested on their morphosyntactic performance including verbal ability test for each subject. On the basis of this study DeKeyser concluded that: “no adult acquirers would score within the range of child acquirers unless they had high verbal aptitude” (p. 514) He further claimed that adult L2 learners who are observed to have relatively low performance ratios as compared to the child learners, owing to the loss of their implicit mechanisms can overcome such a loss by using their explicit mechanisms and successfully achieve native like proficiency at par with the child learners. Moyer (1999) also sought to reframe the CP hypothesis by expanding the purview of the proposition and stating that limiting the learning abilities to age factor, tends to narrow down the language attainment factors and hence is over simplistic and insufficient in nature. Moyer states that age is not the only factor which can be associated with the performance of L2 learners in terms of language acquisition and suggests that language learning is a combination of various factors along with age, which includes various socio-psychological variables which influence the individual’s ability to attain native like proficiency in a foreign language. She further states that apart from the biological factors such as age and maturational elements, age of arrival, duration of stay in a foreign country, length of exposure to a foreign language etc., which are known to be associated with the CP hypothesis, there are various other non-biological factors over and above the biological factors, such as the learner motivation, cultural empathy, the individual abilities and desires to attain excellence in a foreign language, quantity and quality of input received by the L2 learner etc which are more often than not, ignored by the researchers, play an equally important role. Thus on the basis of the above arguments it can be safely concluded that L2 learning should not be confined to age factor alone but instead, it should be studied against the various other non biological factors and as a combination of the two. 5. Analysis Although there have been several studies and researches debating on the issue of age factor and its likely impact on L2 learners in their quest to attain native like competence the evidences so far, can at best be described as inconclusive. The overwhelming evidences presented by both sides of the issue i.e. those in favor of and those challenging the CP hypothesis, has lead to the failure of establishment of one good reason behind the differences, vast or insignificant, in language performances of L2 learners. This is mainly on account of the complexity of the phenomenon. Language as discussed above, is a combination of various factors and hence the critical period must be analyzed in accordance with the several elements that make up the language rather than generalizing the whole issue. Furthermore it is worth considering that the definitions of the Critical period have been aptly provided by the authors although they have conveniently left out one of the most critical aspects of the whole discussion, i.e. the “native like proficiency”. The exact definition and scope of the term is nowhere offered by the researchers and hence observations related to such an aspect remain debatable and doubtful, owing to the apparent absence of one common yardstick against which native like proficiency can be judged. In order to debate a given issue it is necessary to offer logical definitions of all the key concepts being discussed, debated or criticized, however this has not been the case in terms of the CP hypothesis where certain important concepts such as the definition and scope of ‘native like’ proficiency have not yet been approached. In the presence of such fundamental errors of omission, all the empirical evidence presented by the critics, academic scholars and researchers alike hold little or no relevance. Also, various factors related to the critical period hypothesis such as the age of onset, offset and its influence on the linguistic performance of L2 learners are not clearly specified. There are wide ranging differences among researchers regarding the age of onset and offset of this critical period, which further widens the fuels the debate and challenges the concept of critical period especially the role played by the age factor in learning a second language. In order to eliminate such differences and bridge the gap between such differences, it is essential to offer one common version of the concept of age and the onset and offset periods, which would offer the researchers one common platform to compare their studies and arrive at logical conclusions. Thus although several studies have claimed that the differences in performance of L2 learners as compared to the child learners are on account of the age factor, other studies have refuted this claim by providing counter evidence of adult L2 learners who have attained native like proficiency. Arriving at a logical conclusion hence is apparently impossible in the absence of a clear definition of the term ‘native like’ proficiency, and hence the evidence offered by both the sides remain inconclusive. The validity of the claims cannot be established and the findings are ultimately rendered futile and unconvincing. 6. Conclusion The hypothesis which claims that early exposure to a foreign language and / or environment leads to attainment of a native like competence among the learners, is hardly controversial in nature, given the fact that there is widespread support for such a belief in terms of literature and academic researches. Similarly the hypothesis that there are widespread differences between the proficiencies attained by children and adult learners of a second / foreign language has widespread support. However, the claim / belief that the age factor plays a major role in L2 acquisition is highly debatable. Most of the debates are centered on either supporting or refuting the claim that age is the sole factor which influences language development and performance among learners and that – achievement of native like proficiency becomes almost impossible beyond a certain age. 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. All in all, 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. References: Bellingham L., (2000). Language acquisition after forty: a review of the literature. Babel, 35, 1, Pp. 24-27. Bialystok, E. (1997). The structure of age: In search of barriers to second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 13, Pp. 116-137. Birdsong, D., & Molis, M. (2001). On the evidence for maturational constraints in second language acquisition. Journal of Memory and Language, 44, Pp. 235-249. Birdsong, D. (1992). Ultimate attainment in second language acquisition. Language, 68, Pp. 706-755. 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, 19, Pp. 447-465. Coppieters, R., (1987). ‘Competence differences between native and fluent non-native speakers’ Language 63: Pp. 544-573 DeKeyser, R. M., (2000). The robustness of critical period effects in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, Pp. 493-533. Hyltenstam, K., & Abrahamsson, N. (2003). Maturational constraints in SLA. In C. Doughty and M. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition Pp. 539-588 Johnson, J. S., & Newport, E. L. (1989). Critical period effects in language learning: The influence of maturational state on the acquisition of English as a second Language. Cognitive Psychology, 21, Pp. 60-99. Krashen, S. D. (1975). The critical period for language and its possible bases. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 263, Pp. 211-224. Lenneberg, E. (1967). Biological foundations of language. New York: Wiley Long, M. (1990). Maturational constraints on language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, Pp. 251-285 Moyer, A. (1999). Ultimate attainment in L2 phonology: The critical factors of age, motivation, and instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, Pp. 81-108. 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, Pp. 185-206. Nikolov M., (2000). The critical period hypothesis reconsidered: successful adult learners of Hungarian and English. IRAL, 38, Pp. 109-124. Oyama, S. (1978). The sensitive period and comprehension of speech. Working Papers on Bilingualism, 16, Pp. 1-17. Patkowski, M. (1980). The sensitive period for the acquisition of syntax in a second language. Language Learning, 30, Pp. 449-472 Patkowski, M. (1994). The critical age hypothesis and interlanguage phonology. In M. Yavas (Ed.), First and second language phonology, Pp. 205-221 Penfield W & L Roberts (1959). Speech and Brain Mechanisms Princeton University Press Princeton. Scovel, T. (1988). A time to speak: A psycholinguistic inquiry into the critical period for human speech. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. 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: Pp. 159-193 Singleton, D. (2005). The critical period hypothesis: A coat of many colours. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 43, Pp. 269-285. White, L., & Genesee, F. (1996). How native is near-native? The issue of ultimate attainment in adult second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 12, Pp. 233-265 Read More