ELTWeekly Vol. 4 Issue#26 | June 25, 2012 | ISSN 0975-3036
This paper is submitted for publication by Hadi Hamidi, Ph.D. candidate of TEFL, University of Science & Research, Research Data Analyzer, Online Distant Language Instructor, OOVOO & Saeid Najafi Sarem, Department of English, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Hamedan, Iran.
Abstract
Among the many factors that affect second language learning and teaching practices, age has been always considered an important factor. The beginning age for learning a foreign language is a controversial issue concerning which various ideas have been proposed by different scholars. Some researchers refer to the concept of critical period hypothesis for L1 acquisition and claim that before puberty is the best time to start teaching a second language. On the other hand, some other researchers reject the application of this hypothesis in second language learning relying on the evidence that adult learners can acquire a second language more easily at least in some aspects of language. In their claims, these researchers refer to the concepts like multiple critical period and the presence of motivation based on which any person can begin learning a second language at any age. The findings of the current paper are of important implications for the field of foreign/second language teaching.
Key terms: Second Language Teaching, Critical Period Hypothesis, Multiple Critical Period, Motivation
Introduction
Speaking a second language has been considered an important skill for many people throughout the history. Many studies have been conducted to show the best possible conditions for leaning a second language. There has been much controversy concerning when to start second language teaching and learning and a lot of suggestions have been put forward by different scholars.
One of the most significant factors affecting the whole process of second language teaching/learning is shown through literature to be the age factor. As Singleton (1989) states extensive research, theory, and professional debate have searched for a definitive answer to the question of the best age to begin learning a foreign language. According to Chavez (2006) the best time to learn a foreign language differs from person to person and with circumstances. Still, it is possible to make some useful generalizations. The best time to learn another language is as a child. If you learn a second or third language when you are young, before puberty, and you learn it from native speakers, you will learn to speak it naturally, without an accent (Chavez, 2006). Many scholars who have agreed on early child language learning refer to the concepts like critical or sensitive period hypothesis.
Sensitive or Critical Period
Different scholars have different ideas on the exact meaning of critical period, but they all agree on a period in a child’s life when L2 learning happens smoothly and almost inevitably, resulting in native-like or near-native-like proficiency. Knudsen (2004) distinguished two types of developmentally decisive periods, sensitive periods and critical periods. In fact, those scholars who were skeptical about the application of the strong version of critical period in L2 learning developed a softer version and coined the term sensitive period. As Knudsen (2004) defines: a sensitive period refers to any duration of time when the neuronal connections within the brain are particularly susceptible to environmental input. The critical period is a special case of sensitive periods when the brain MUST receive certain stimulation or input in order to continue to function normally. Lenneberg (1967, cited in Paradis, 2000) defines critical period as “a period of time with a specific onset and offset during which language can be acquired more easily than any other time” (p. 187). According to Lenneberg critical or sensitive period refers to a time when there is maximum brain plasticity during language development. During this period functional lateralization is thought to be mostly influenced by variations in the timing of exposure to language.
This question that whether there is a critical period for second language acquisition or not has been of great importance for language researchers. Most discussion about the critical period in language acquisition actually concerns learning that takes place in naturalistic L2 contexts rather than formal learning. As long as L2 competence is assessed without regard for the learning mechanisms that produced it, it may appear that there is merely an optimal age for language learning. Birdsong (2006) states that strict either/or categorization of a true CP as defined in biology is inappropriate to be used when it comes to L2 learning. To solve this problem he prefers the term sensitive period as it allows for the existence of exceptions because it does not consider it critical to start learning the l2 in the specified bounded period. Some scholars even prefer the term ‘age effect” to critical.
Multiple Critical Periods
Several scholars have suggested that since the different components of language- phonology, morphology, syntax, lexicon, and pragmatics are acquired relatively independently of each other, their development might follow different timetables, pointing to the possible existence of multiple critical periods for a person. Knudson (2004) argues that language depends on a wide range of specialized sensory, motor, and cognitive skills that involve many neural networks and structures, and they are shaped differently by experience.
It is generally assumed in the linguistic community that children learn second languages more easily and quickly than adults. This difference in ability has been traced back to the existence of “sensitive (or critical) period,” which ends at around 8-10 years of age. It is thought that the pre-mature brain has a higher degree of neural plasticity than the post-mature brain and that this directly relates to the neural bases of second language acquisition. However, there is great disagreement about the extent to which adult second language learners are inhibited due to these neural differences.
According to Mayberry (2006) the strict version of CP would therefore mean that there is a specific cut-off point before which everybody inevitably attains native-like L2 abilities and after which nobody does. However, it is clear to most scholars that SLA does not meet these strict criteria for a critical period on several grounds. According to Harley (1986) indeed research that compares younger and older learners of foreign languages suggests that in some respects, older learners are more efficient language learners. Short-term studies have shown that older learners acquire certain aspects of language more quickly and efficiently than do younger learners. For example, they are more efficient in oral communication in comparison to young learners. Researchers attribute this outcome to the cognitive maturity, greater world knowledge, and enhanced learning capabilities (knowing ‘how to learn’) of older children and adults.
On the other hand, as Krashen, Scarcella and Long (1982) state other studies have suggested that eventually younger learners may be more proficient in the long run, even if older learners are quicker in the short run particularly in the area of oral communication. Also, there appears to be general consensus that younger learners are far more likely to attain and retain native-like pronunciation than are older learners.
As it is seen, the conflicting research evidence on the optimal age for language learning has centered around the ultimate level of proficiency attained. In addition to the degree of proficiency learners attain, however, there are other compelling reasons to begin language learning early, some of which are mentioned here:
According to Lee (1996) since there is evidence that suggests there are cognitive benefits to early childhood bilingualism, an early start and continued progress toward bilingualism is desirable.
Wilburn Robinson (1998) states that students who take a foreign language in the elementary grades may demonstrate academic gains in other areas of the curriculum.
It takes a long time to gain proficiency in a foreign language, particularly when it is learned in a school setting. Therefore, the earlier students start the higher the level they are likely to achieve (Haas, 1998).
According to Pinker (1994) brain research indicates that children are at an optimal age for language learning. Although language study is beneficial and effective at any age, some studies suggest that the human brain is more open to language learning from birth to preadolescence. During this critical period, or “window of readiness”, there are greater synapses and plasticity that is highest before the age of six, and then gradually declines.
Final Remarks
Based on the available literature, it is concluded that age is an important factor which can have significant impact on the ease and speed of second language learning. Abundant evidence exists which approves of L2 learning in early childhood which is derived from critical period hypothesis for L1 acquisition. On the other hand, some other scholars have rejected this hypothesis in second language learning relying on the evidence that adult learners can acquire a second language more easily at least in some aspects of language including vocabulary ang grammar. It seems that although the concept of critical period is applicable to L1 acquisition, its application in the domain of L2 learning is not very strong and thus questionable. Moreover concerning the general process of language learning one thing is certain, that is, with regard to motivation and opportunity almost anyone can attain a degree of proficiency in another language at any age. According to Chavez (2006) the best time to learn a foreign language differs from person to person and with circumstances.
In general, scholars agree that age matters, but opinions differ on the exact sources and consequences of the age factor. In the process of language learning, we are dealing with a complex organism called learner which goes through a very complicated developmental process called learning. In this path, the learner with his/her individualistic characteristics interacts with a highly complex linguistic and social environment. The presence of all these factors at work makes the process very unpredictable. Therefore, it seems quite obvious that language learning is not simply a linear process and the age factor cannot be merely taken as the criterion for judging learning outcomes.
Taking these points into account, we can come up with two suggestions that seem most plausible with regard to language learning. In naturalistic SLA environments such as immigrant situations, younger is definitely better for a variety of reasons even if it does not guarantee native-like ultimate attainment. On the other hand, in formal educational contexts where the L2 is learnt primarily as a school subject only a limited amount of direct contact with L2 speakers, starting before the age of about 11 will mainly have attitudinal rather than linguistic benefits.
All these findings are of important implications in the process of language teaching. First of all, considering the age factor, teachers have to pay attention to the natural cognitive abilities of their learners and try to gear their teaching practices at the level of their students. Second, teachers and material developers should notice that learners at different ages need different materials and are predisposed to learning specific language skills, so students have to be provided with materials most suitable for their age condition.
Furthermore, beside the age factor, teachers should consider many other factors including affections, feelings, emotions, background, culture as well as a countless number of environmental elements which all pose certain influences on the teaching process in general and the teachers’ practices in specific in language classrooms.
References
Birdsong, D. (2006). Age and second language acquisition and processing. In M. Gullberg & P. Indefrey (Eds.), The cognitive neuroscience of second language acquisition (pp. 9-49). USA: Blackwell Publishing.
Chavez, J. (2006). When is the best time to learn a foreign language? Retrieved October 20, 2011
Haas, M. (1998). Early vs. late: The practitioner‟s perspective. In M. Met, (ed.), Critical issues in early second language learning (pp. 23-35). Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.
Harley, B. (1986). Age in second language acquisition. San Diego, CA: College Hill Press.
Knudsen, E. I. (2004). Sensitive periods in the development of the brain and behavior. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16 (8), 1412-1425. Doi:10.1162/0898929042304796
Krashen, S. D., Scarcella, R. C., & Long, M. H. (1982). Child-adult differences in second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Lee, P. (1996). Cognitive development in bilingual children: A case for bilingual instruction in early childhood education. Bilingual Research Journal, 20 (3), 499-522. 9
Paradis, M. (2000). The neurolinguistics of bilingualism in the next decades. Brain and language, 71, 178-180. Doi: 10.1006/brln.1999.2245.
Pinker, S. (1994). The language instinct. New York: Morrow.
Singleton, D. (1989). Language acquisition: The age factor. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Wilburn Robinson, D. (1998). The cognitive, academic, and attitudinal benefits of early language learning. In M. Met, (Ed.), Critical issues in early second language learning.-Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.
1 comment