Second Language Acquisition: The Age Factor

By: Julia VanSickle & Sarah Ferris

The Age Factor

When is the best age to learn a second language? What is considered proficient in a second proficient language? What is the ultimate goal in acquiring a second language and how does this affect at what age it is taught?

Asking yourself, When is the best age to learn a second language, seems like a pretty straight-forward question. However, it is important to consider not only the available research, but also several other questions as well. Why is the individual learning the language in the first place? Does he/she wish to be proficient, or planning on dropping the language once certain requirements are met. What is the ultimate goal of learning the language? These are several questions we will be covering throughout the presentation and will come back to in a follow-up discussion. Throughout our presentation, we will be discussing the biological, cognitive, affective and linguistic perspectives in addressing these questions.

Starting off with these key points established the direction of your presentation.

The Critical Period Hypothesis (CPH):

A Biological Argument
Biologically determined period of life when language can be acquired more easily and beyond which time language is increasingly difficult to acquire.
Lenneberg (1967) proposed that natural language acquisition through exposure can only happen during the critical period (ages 2-puberty). Before age 2 the brain has not developed enough, and after puberty it is has developed too much, with the loss of plasticity and the completion of lateralization of the language function. Does a critical period exist for first language acquisition? What about for learning a second language?

We found several definitions of the critical period throughout our research, but we feel this one defines the critical period hypothesis pretty well (Brown 2000). If we follow what Lenneberg (1967) suggests about the CPH, we may speculate that if a CPH exists for first language acquisition, that one could possibly exist for second language acquisition. If this is the case, it would seem that children would have the advantage over adults in learning a second language.

Very succinctly put!

The Critical Period Hypothesis

Researchers have found evidence to support the CPH from studies done with kittens.

Support for the CPH in first language acquisition was also found in studies done with deaf individuals.

Research done involving the critical period with the visual systems on kittens shows support for a critical period. Kittens eyes were covered for a certain time during infancy and when the patches were taken off, the kittens were blind. The brain must be stimulated during a certain period of time when it is receptive to new input, known as plasticity, in order to aid in the development of correct functioning (Hoffman, 1991). This lead linguists to hypothesize a critical period for language acquisition. Research done with deaf individuals supports the CPH. Some deaf individuals were not exposed to sign language until they were 5 or 6 years old and as adults, when compared to others who had learned sign language at an earlier age, these individuals had differing language abilities (Newport, 1993). But is there a critical period for second language acquisition? This is where we get some confusion over the Critical Period Hypothesis. We see that adults clearly can acquire a second language, but some research suggests a critical period for some areas of possible grammatical acquisition. While it is not impossible for adults to learn a second language, the critical period hypothesis suggests they may have increased difficulty learning compared to their younger counterparts. This may be due to brain lateralization at puberty and the loss of plasticity mentioned by Lenneberg.

You are accurately putting your script in this note section and have excellent supporting comments. There are some grammar and spelling issues in your notes and on the previous slide, but Ill score only those occurring in the slides.

The Neurological Perspective

The Brian Plasticity Hypothesis: A childs brain is child plastic in comparison to that of an adult, and after the age of about 9 years, the brain progressively becomes stiff and rigid. rigid.
The child develops a conditioned reflex to turn from one language to the other without confusion, translation or a mother-tongue motheraccent. accent.

Lateralization: As the brain matures, certain functions are assigned to either the left or right hemisphere.
Upon the completion of lateralization, it is believed to be difficult for learners to acquire fluency and authentic native-like pronunciation in a second language.

Plasticity gives children a superior ability to acquire language, even though the older learner is seen to have the advantage in vocabulary expansion (Penfield & Roberts, 1959). The idea of a child developing a conditioned reflex can be compared to the term code-switching today. Code-switching is using two or more kinds of language in the same conversation and if an individual is able to switch back and forth, this is actually a sign of linguistic maturity, and should not be viewed as being only semilingual (de Valenzuela, 2000). It is believed that language acquisition is more difficult once the brain is lateralized. It is also believed that the left hemisphere is more specialized for analytical, intellectual tasks, and the right for more emotional, social needs (Brown, 2000). However, this kind of lefbrained and right-brained qualities provides much conflicting research, so we must be careful when considering it for our teaching practices. Still argument exists as to when exactly lateralization occurs (Brown 2000). Lenneberg (1967) said by puberty, while Krashen (1973) cites research to support lateralization around age five, which supports the research on first language acquisition fluency by the age of five.

Very good breadth of discussion.

The Critical Period in Second Language Acquisition

Is there a critical period for SLA? The extreme view of the CPH=a door slamming shut CPH= shut The Sensitive period: the marginal time during the period: critical period which partial development is possible=cracks around the door possible= door No critical period exists for vocabulary Phonology of a foreign language (having an authentic accent) does support the CPH for acquiring a second language.

Based on our research, we came up with a kind of metaphor for whether or not a critical period exists for second language acquisition. The extreme view would be a door slamming shut, meaning that after the critical period, an individual is not able to acquire a second language. We know this is not true since adults can and do learn second languages. Gleitman and Newport (1995) suggest what is called a sensitive period. This shape would be kind of like a bell curve, where between the critical period is the optimal time to learn a second language, but with sensitive periods extending out on either side (before the age of two and after puberty). Singleton (1995) writes, there is no point at which vocabulary acquisition can be predicted to cease. Much of the research indicates that people beyond the age of puberty do not acquire a native-like accent, but of course exceptions do exist (Brown, 2000). We will come back to this point later in the presentation.

I like the way you lay out your case and use concise descriptions.

The Sensitive Period

A Case Study:
Genies acquisition took place during her sensitive period (from 0-1.6 years and 13+) while Chelsea missed the entire sensitive and critical periods, not learning sign language until she was 31 years old. Genie learned vocabulary and her sentences had structural complexity of a normal child (Another house have dog), while Chelseas had no structure at all (Breakfast eating girl).

Birdsong, 1999. Two different individuals learned language at different periods. Genie was able to learn vocabulary, supporting the notion that no critical period exists for vocabulary expansion. Genie also had some sentence structure. Chelsea, on the other hand, was thought to be mentally retarded, not deaf, all the way until the time she was 31. She did not learn any form of sign language until she was 31 years old.

Good comparison to support your discussion.

The Cognitive Perspective

Piagetian Thought:
The formal operational thinker will reach equilibrium around the ages of puberty equilibrium which is associated with more abstract, formal thought processes, making second language learning more difficult for the adult and drawing support toward the CPH.

The left hemisphere (controls analytical and intellectual functions) becomes dominant causing the adult to overanalyze the process of SLA.

Lateralization Hypothesis:

Krashens Monitor Theory Krashen (Acquisition vs. Learning)

The learner must acquire the language before they try to learn it. Acquisition is a unconscious process, while learning a language is conscious, focused on rules and correct form.

Piaget claimed that cognition in developing individuals moves is a process where one moves from states of doubt/uncertainty (disequilibrium) to states of resolution and certainty (equilibrium) and back again until equilibrium is reached at the ages of fourteen to fifteen at the formal operational stage (Brown 2000). Because children are indifferent to contradictions and with maturity they seek to find resolution for the ambiguities about them, once they reach the age of 14-15, learning a second language seems overwhelming, raising their inhibitions. Ausubel (1964) suggests of children that their intellectual capacities are less differentiated along particular lines, and they are more venturesome and less rigid in undertaking new learning tasks. Krashens Monitor Theory differentiates between acquiring a language and learning a language. Krashen cautions against learning too early in the process of the second language acquisition, because then learners may focus more on form and being correct instead of having an ability to communicate fluently (Escamilla & Grassi, 2000). The formal operational person may focus too much on the learning part, causing more difficulty in acquiring the L2 however, the Monitor model does predict faster initial progress by adults than children in the L2 (Harley 1986).

Really like the way you have elucidated your points and that you are providing accurate and relevant citations.

The Cognitive Perspective

Cognitive strategies may benefit learners Can use conscious learning strategies, mnemonics Literacy skills in L1 make SLA in L2 easier Adults do not have to acquire thousands of new concepts like children do, but only new verbal symbols representing these concepts. concepts. Cummins suggests older learners with schooling in L1 will do better in acquiring L2 more rapidly in context-reduced, contextcognitively demanding situations (school/academic achievement). Younger learners will find it easier to acquire cognitively undemanding aspects of interpersonal communication in context-embedded situations. contextResearch indicates that children do not necessarily have a superior ability to acquire a second language.

Using cognitive strategies and being literate in the L1 may benefit older learners in the L2 (de Valenzuela, 2000). Adults have a much greater vocabulary which assists them in learning the L2, along with being able to make conscious grammatical generalizations (Ausubel, 1964). Cummins (1983) suggests that cognitive adult maturity only is an advantage for acquiring certain aspects of the L2. Older learners will have an advantage at cognitively demanding tasks in context reduced situations, like school. Younger learners will have an advantage in the cognitively undemanding tasks, like in using interpersonal communication skills in context-embedded situations.

A Case Study
In a study to compare 4 age groups and their acquisition of Russian, all groups of children were significantly poorer than adults on all measures of retention.
Retention of Russian Commands
350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0

Act-Act Observe-Act

Se co nd

Fo ur th

gh th

This study was done by Asher and Price (1967). All four age groups were split into two groups, the first group being called the Act-Act group. The subjects were to imitate an adult model. The second group was called the Observe-Act group, and the subjects only watched the model. All groups were given retention tests immediately following the training, 24 and 48 hours later.

Good use of supporting data plus an interesting study!

Co l

le ge

Ei

Un de

rg ra d

ra de

ra

ra de

de

Affective Issues
Krashens Affective Filter Hypothesis Language Ego/Inhibitions Attitudes Motivation Style/Personality Culture Shock Peer pressure The way content is taught in classroom context

Affective issues among learners of an L2 play a very significant role in determining the success of the learner, whether they be a child, a teen, or an adult. We have discussed these issues in class and have covered them in our reading. Schumann (1975) concludes that these variables may be as important as or even more important than neurological maturation in accounting for difficulties in adult second language learning. Learners must have a low affective filter in order to acquire the L2. If the affective filter is too high, as a result from too much pressure from outside factors, then the L2 is restricted from the LAD, thus causing no acquisition to occur (Escamilla and Grassi, 2000). The language ego can describe a kind of identity one develops based on the language one speaks. This may account for difficulties adults have when learning a second language because while a child is still in the process of developing their self-identity and language ego, the adult is more planted in his/her identity thus having increased inhibitions. Research shows that adults have many inhibitions when learning a second language, for example, when speaking the L2 leads to embarrassment (Brown, 2000). Attitudes toward the particular language and culture of the L2 can also affect SLA. Young children who have cognitively not developed strong attitudes toward particular cultures, races, classes, and ethnic groups may be less affected as compared to adults (Brown, 2000). Individual differences in style/personality and motivation will contribute to the learners success in the L2 as well. Both children and adults may experience culture shock, experiencing feelings of estrangement, anger, hostility, indecision, frustration, unhappiness, sadness, loneliness, homesickness, and even physical illness (Brown 2000). This may also contribute to how willing the learner is to learn the new language. Children may experience more peer pressure to conform and learn the L2 as compared to adults (Brown, 2000). It is also important to consider the way the content is being taught in the classroom. Too often language classes

Interference between languages

Adults may have an easier time learning a second language because of knowledge of a first language. However, often their second language is learned in a classroom setting and interference is greater than in a natural setting, which is how children usually learn. Research shows that acquisition of L2 in children is similar to the processes used in the acquisition of L1. First language can cause interference between L1 and L2 in adults, but based on research we cannot say it is the most relevant or crucial factor in adult second language acquisition.

Adults often learn a second language in a classroom setting, which may affect the level of L1 interference (McLaughlin 1984). However, we have found from research that interference from the first language does not imply that interference is the most relevant or crucial factor in adult second language acquisition (Brown 2000). Adults learning an L2 produce some of the same kinds of errors as children learning an L1 (Brown 2000). The L1 can therefore be not just an interfering factor, but a facilitating factor to fill in gaps and differentiate between rules in the L1 and L2 for adults learning a second language (Brown 2000).

Interlanguage
Creative Construction Second language learners reconstruct rules for what they hear, guided by strategies that derive from certain innate mechanisms that cause them to formulate certain types of hypotheses about the language system being acquired.

This quote comes from Dulay & Burt (1974). This claim is supported by research by Dulay and Burt. The authors collected data based on the acquisition order of eleven English morphemes in children learning English as a second language. Dulay and Burt found a common order of acquisition of the morphemes among the children who also varied across several different native-language backgrounds.

You have also done a good job using multiple resources to support your points.

How do children and adults learn a second language?

Research suggests that adult and child second language learners pass through essentially that same developmental stages in SLA. The only difference is the cognitive maturity of the learner making for an increased vocabulary and rule application. Both are expected to make transfer errors and overgeneralize language rules.

This research was found in McLaughlin (1984) and others. Based on these points, it seems as though children and adults go through the same developmental stages when learning a language. If children and adults are similar in this way, then what makes them different in SLA? This is where we must remember the affective, and possibly neurological factors discussed earlier.

What is proficiency?
Children are considered fluent when they can communicate at a level appropriate for their age. An adult must communicate with other adults about much more complicated issues, where deficiencies in vocabulary and syntax show up more readily.

This quote is from Selinker (1972). A popular misconception is that young children acquire language at a rapid pace unmatched by second language learners (de Valenzuela, 2000). We have higher expectations of older learners than of younger learners. At what point do we consider someone proficient in a language? Reading, writing, speaking and listening are all important factors in language acquisition. Adults are expected to be more competent than children because of age and maturity, and adult conversations may vary greatly from those of children.

Accent
Adults reaching native-like competence in a second language ranges from zero to a 5% rate of success. People beyond the age of puberty do not acquire native-like pronunciation of a second language based on neurological and cognitive factors. Studies show that there may be a critical period for accent only, however the pronunciation of a language is not the only factor for second language acquisition, nor is it the most important.

The fact that adults reaching native-like competence in a second language ranges from nil to a 5% success rate comes from Selinker, 1972. Brown (2000) suggests that although advantages to SLA at an early age do exist, really no evidence exists that an adult cannot overcome all of those disadvantages save one, accent. In addition, effective interpersonal communication does not rely on accent.

And as we have discussed in class, there are wide ranges in accents and intelligibility.

Age Isnt Everything!

All things equal, who is better at second language acquisition, children or adults? Problem: Not all things are equal for all individuals! Factors other than age must be considered, and these factors may outweigh the neurological or cognitive advantages in any particular developmental stage.

When the question all things equal, who is better at second language acquisition, children or adults? de Valenzuela (2000) answers that the problem with this question is that not all things are equal for all individuals. We must consider other factors!

What do you think?

Does Younger=Better in the Long Run?

Are older learners more proficient in L2?

Some feel adults may have an initial advantage in L2 acquisition, but children take over in the long run, also viewed as the tortoise and hare effect (Bialystok & Hakuta, 1994). Is there a best specific age for second language acquisition? Some research has shown optimal ages around 7-8 years and 10-12 years, but can we really predict a specific age? Scovel (1999) suggests that Younger=Better is a myth supported by the media and junk science. Based on research, adults have been shown to be superior learners (Scovel 1999). What do you think?

I liked how you opened up your presentation at this point and engaged the whole group in the exchange.

Something to Think About

One of the dangers of the emphasis on critical periods is that it prompts us to pay too much attention to when learning occurs and too little attention to how learning might best occur.

(Bruer, 1999). Age cannot be looked at as the sole determining factor of success in learning a second language. Many other factors must be taken into consideration. Questions as to why the learner is learning the second language in the first place and what his/her goals are in learning the language are also important indicators of how successful he/she will be in the language. Teachers of language learners must be aware of strategies and methods to empower the learner. Educators must understand and consider the affective and socio-cultural factors influencing the learner, possibly paying less attention to the age of the learner and more attention to how to best teach the L2 through a variety of methods. The age of a learner does have implications, but as educators we must consider the larger picture and adapt accordingly.

Bibliography
Asher, J.J. and Price B.S. (1967). The learning strategy of a total physical response: some age differences. Child Development. Ausubel, D. P. (1964). Adults versus children in second language learning: Psychological considerations. Modern Language Journal, 48, 420-24. Bialystok, E. & Hakuta, K. (1994) In Other Words. Basic Books, A Division of HarperCollins Publishers, Inc. Birdsong, David. (1999). Second Language Acquisition and the Critical Period Hypothesis. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers: New Jersey. Brown, Douglas H. (2000). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching (Fourth Edition). New York: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc. Bruer, J.T. (1999). The Myth of the First Three Years. The Free Press, A Division of Simon and Schuster Inc.

issues in

Cummins, J. (1983) Language proficiency and academic achievement. In J.W. Oller (ed.) Current language testing research. Rowley, Mass. : Newbury Houe. De Valenzuela, (2000). From the Professional Development Resource Series, Second Language Acquisition. BUENO Center, University of Colorado, Boulder.

TESOL Quarterly.

Dulay, H.C. & Burt, M.K. (1974). Errors and strategies in child second language acquisition.

Language

Escamilla K. & Grassi, E. (2000). From the Professional Development Series, Second

Acquisition, BUENO Center, University of Colorado, Boulder.

Gleitman, L. & Newport, E. (1995). The invention of language by children: Environmental and biological influences on the acquisition of language. Harley, B. (1986). Age in Second Language Acquisition. England: Multilingual Matters Ltd. Hoffman C. (1991) An introduction to bilingualism. New York, Longman. Krashen, S.D. (1973) Laterization, language learning, and the critical period: Some new evidence. Language Learning, 23, 63-74. Lenneberg, E.H. (1967) Biological Foundations of Language. New York: Wiley and sons. McLaughlin, Barry. (1984). Second Language Acquisition in Childhood Volume 1. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers: New Jersey. Newport, E.L. (1993). Maturational constraints on language learning. In P. Bloom, (Ed)., Core readings (pp. 543-560) Cambridge, Mass: MIT press. Language acquisition Penfield, W. & Roberts, L. (1959). Speech and Brain Mechanisms. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Schumann, J.H. (1975) Affective factors and the problem of age in second language acquisition. Language Learning, 19, 245-53. Scovel, T. (1999). The younger the better myth and bilingual education. In Gonzales, Roseann, and Melis, Ildiko (Eds.) Language Ideologies: Critical Perspectives on the English Only Movement. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics. Singleton, D. & Lengyel, Z. The Age Factor in Second Language Acquisition. Multilingual Matters Ltd.

Scoring
Area Comprehensiveness of topic coverage Grammar & spelling Contribution to group process Clarity, comprehensiveness of notes & bibliography Total Possible
100

Score and Comments

100 points. You covered the topic well and were clear and concise in presenting the various points of view. 44 points. There are six spelling or grammar errors in your slides. 50 points. You both contributed to your presentation preparation and presentation delivery. 100 points. Your notes and bibliography were done perfectly which made it easy to see what you had researched and how you had used the research information to develop your points. Excellent job! 294 out of 300

50

50

100

Total Score