Journal Article Show Christian Abello-Contesse Christian Abello-Contesse Dr Christian Abello-Contesse is an Associate Professor at the University of Seville, Spain, where he teaches undergraduate courses in ELT methodology and psycholinguistics and graduate seminars in SLA, bilingualism, and bilingual education. He has published numerous journal articles and book chapters on L2 learning and teaching and has taught at several universities in Chile, Spain, and the United States Search for other works by this author on: Published: 18 December 2008
Close Navbar Search Filter Microsite Search Term Search In the field of second language acquisition (SLA), how specific aspects of learning a non-native language (L2) may be affected by when the process begins is referred to as the ‘age factor’. Because of the way age intersects with a range of social, affective, educational, and experiential variables, clarifying its relationship with learning rate and/or success is a major challenge. There is a popular belief that children as L2 learners are ‘superior’ to adults (Scovel 2000), that is, the younger the learner, the quicker the learning process and the better the outcomes. Nevertheless, a closer examination of the ways in which age combines with other variables reveals a more complex picture, with both favourable and unfavourable age-related differences being associated with early- and late-starting L2 learners (Johnstone 2002). The ‘critical period hypothesis’ (CPH) is a particularly relevant case in point. This is the claim that there is, indeed, an optimal period for language acquisition, ending at puberty. However, in its original formulation (Lenneberg 1967), evidence for its existence was based on the relearning of impaired L1 skills, rather than the learning of a second language under normal circumstances. Furthermore, although the age factor is an uncontroversial research variable extending from birth to death (Cook 1995), and the CPH is a narrowly focused proposal subject to recurrent debate, ironically, it is the latter that tends to dominate SLA discussions (García Lecumberri and Gallardo 2003), resulting in a number of competing conceptualizations. Thus, in the current literature on the subject (Bialystok 1997; Richards and Schmidt 2002; Abello-Contesse et al. 2006), references can be found to (i) multiple critical periods (each based on a specific language component, such as age six for L2 phonology), (ii) the non-existence of one or more critical periods for L2 versus L1 acquisition, (iii) a ‘sensitive’ yet not ‘critical’ period, and (iv) a gradual and continual decline from childhood to adulthood. It therefore needs to be recognized that there is a marked contrast between the CPH as an issue of continuing dispute in SLA, on the one hand, and, on the other, the popular view that it is an invariable ‘law’, equally applicable to any L2 acquisition context or situation. In fact, research indicates that age effects of all kinds depend largely on the actual opportunities for learning which are available within overall contexts of L2 acquisition and particular learning situations, notably the extent to which initial exposure is substantial and sustained (Lightbown 2000). Thus, most classroom-based studies have shown not only a lack of direct correlation between an earlier start and more successful/rapid L2 development but also a strong tendency for older children and teenagers to be more efficient learners. For example, in research conducted in the context of conventional school programmes, Cenoz (2003) and Muñoz (2006) have shown that learners whose exposure to the L2 began at age 11 consistently displayed higher levels of proficiency than those for whom it began at 4 or 8. Furthermore, comparable limitations have been reported for young learners in school settings involving innovative, immersion-type programmes, where exposure to the target language is significantly increased through subject-matter teaching in the L2 (Genesee 1992; Abello-Contesse 2006). In sum, as Harley and Wang (1997) have argued, more mature learners are usually capable of making faster initial progress in acquiring the grammatical and lexical components of an L2 due to their higher level of cognitive development and greater analytical abilities. In terms of language pedagogy, it can therefore be concluded that (i) there is no single ‘magic’ age for L2 learning, (ii) both older and younger learners are able to achieve advanced levels of proficiency in an L2, and (iii) the general and specific characteristics of the learning environment are also likely to be variables of equal or greater importance. References. , et al. ‘Does interaction help or hinder oral L2 development in early English immersion?’ , 2006 , , , . , Age in L2 Acquisition and Teaching , 2006 Bern, Switzerland Peter Lang . ‘The structure of age: in search of barriers to second language acquisition’ , Second Language Research , 1997 , vol. 13/2 (pg. 116 - 37 ) . , . ‘The influence of age on the acquisition of English: general proficiency, attitudes and code-mixing’ , 2003 . , . ‘Multicompetence and effects of age’ , The Age Factor in Second Language Acquisition , 1995 Clevedon, UK Multilingual Matters Ltd , . , . ‘English FL sounds in school learners of different ages’ , 2003 , . , Age and Acquisition of English as a Foreign Language , 2003 Clevedon, UK Multilingual Matters Ltd . , . ‘Pedagogical implications of second language immersion’ , Bilingüismo y Adquisición de Segundas Lenguas , 1992 Bilbao, Spain Servicio Editorial de la Universidad del País Vasco , . , . ‘The critical period hypothesis: where are we now?’ , Tutorials in Bilingualism. Psycholinguistic Perspectives , 1997 Mahwah, NJ Lawrence Erlbaum Associates . ‘Addressing “the age factor”: some implications for language policy’ , 2002 . , Biological Foundations of Language , 1967 New York John Wiley & Sons, Inc . ‘Classroom SLA research and second language teaching’ , Applied Linguistics , 2000 , vol. 21/4 (pg. 431 - 62 ) . , et al. ‘The BAF project: research on the effects of age on foreign language acquisition’ , 2006 , . , Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics , 2002 London Longman . , . ‘ “The younger, the better” myth and bilingual education’ , Language Ideologies. Critical Perspectives on the Official English Movement , 2000 Mahwah, NJ Lawrence Erlbaum Associates © The Author 2008. Published by Oxford University Press; all rights reserved. © The Author 2008. Published by Oxford University Press; all rights reserved. Why is critical period important in language?The critical period hypothesis (CPH) states that the first few years of life constitute the time during which language develops readily and after which (sometime between age 5 and puberty) language acquisition is much more difficult and ultimately less successful.
What is the critical period for learning language?According to Lenneberg's theory, natural acquisition of (a first or a second) language from mere exposure occurs during a critical period that begins at the age of two years and ends in puberty.
What is the significance of critical period hypothesis in language acquisition and development?The critical period hypothesis says that there is a period of growth in which full native competence is possible when acquiring a language. This period is from early childhood to adolescence. The critical period hypothesis has implications for teachers and learning programmes, but it is not universally accepted.
What is the significance of critical period hypothesis?In second language acquisition research, the critical period hypothesis (cph) holds that the function between learners' age and their susceptibility to second language input is non-linear. This paper revisits the indistinctness found in the literature with regard to this hypothesis's scope and predictions.
|
How significant is the critical age period in the process of learning a language?
zusammenhängende Posts
Urheberrechte © © 2024 berikutyang Inc.
