The critical period hypothesis: in your own words, explain

what it is and describe some of the empirical evidence for

(or against) this hypothesis.
The term critical period originated in biology was first brought into language acquisition by
Penfield and Roberts in 1959 but was refined eight years later by Lenneberg (Vanhove,
2013). The critical period hypothesis stated that an individual can acquire the first language
in the first few years of life dubbed as critical period/time if provided with sufficient catalysts.
But this ability to acquire language diminishes after the certain critical period. The critical
Period hypothesis has been one of the most researched topics in linguistics and language
acquisition. According to Bailey, et al. (2001), both theorists and social policy makers have
been attracted to the idea of the critical period for second language acquisition that hinders
the ability of older learners to achieve ultimate attainment. Lenneberg stated that the right
time for language acquisition is between age two and puberty but his study findings were
based on first language acquisition of deaf children and children with serious cognitive
impairments. Further researches brought evidence supporting the critical period hypothesis
[(Johnson, 1992), (Johnson & Newport, 1989)]. Even though their parameters varied, there
was unanimous evidence that language proficiency scores declined with the increase in age
when it came to second language acquisition. There is documented empirical evidence that
with age, individuals capability to acquire second language declines [(Flege, et al., 1999),
(Stevens, 1999)]. But there is the controversy that whether this hypothesis can be used to
predict the constraints of second language acquisition by learners. Singleton & Ryan (2004)
has rightly pointed out that critical period hypothesis have been turned into different forms
and pretexts over the years, but the context of second language acquisition has attracted
most attention from researchers and linguists all over the world.
According to Abello-Contesse (2009), Age factor plays an important part when it comes
second language acquisition because age affects human capabilities in various ways i.e.
social, educational, experiential aspects but to establish the impact age has on the skill of
learning a new language is very challenging. Scovel (2000) states that children are better
learners of second language than adults. But Johnstone (2002) states that when age is
associated with other related variables, there is mixed results for both early and late second
language acquirers. As age is an unavoidable and omnipresent variable for any human
being, the focus of critical period hypothesis on a narrow period life has made the debate
more recurrent than ever. Due to the difference of opinions among, several schools of
thoughts, Abello-Contesse (2009) came up with a list of terminologies used by scholars to
elaborate and further develop the critical period hypothesis (a) various critical period for
different components of language acquisition, (b) sensitive but not yet critical period, (c) the
absence of critical period when it comes first language acquisition. Long (2005) has pointed
out another dimension of controversy with regard to the critical period hypothesis. According
to the author, all observers are in agreement when it comes to the initial success rate of
acquisition and ultimate attainment achieved among different subject groups of different age
brackets. But there is consistent disagreement with regard to what causes the varying rate of
acquisition and attainment nurture or nature.
Hakuta, et al. (2003) states that critical period hypothesis is very popular among scholars for
explaining the variance among children and adults in terms of second language acquisition.
This hypothesis has received attention in policy debates of USA about the language
education. Hakuta, et al. (2003) conducted tests to determine if there were discontinuity in
language proficiency between 15 and 20 year olds. The researchers could not prove critical
period hypothesis but there were enough evidence to conclude that the ability of second

language acquisition declines throughout the life span and socioeconomic factors, mostly
formal education, can be accounted for the success of second language acquisition.
There were significant difference between scholars about the age span for critical period
hypothesis. Lennebergs critical period ranges from two years to puberty, while other
researchers point down to 12, 13 15 or 18 years of age (Vanhove, 2013). Hakuta, et al.
(2003) stated that there might another explanation for the decline in second language
acquisition with age as age nevertheless hinders the individuals ability to acquire new skills.
They may include social and educational capabilities the impacts learning opportunities as
well as cognitive abilities and with age the mechanism essential to learn new language
erodes gradually. Even though there is no certain empirical evidence to the existence of
critical period, it is for sure that individuals ability to acquire new language diminishes with
increasing age of initial exposure. Researchers have also pointed out that the rate of decline
is not always the same because of various socioeconomic variables i.e. formal education.
There are also questions about the right methodology to collect and analyse data in this
regard. Future researches may focus on whether the critical period hypothesis is applicable
to language acquisition or the certain parts of language acquisition.
WORD COUNT: 824

References
Abello-Contesse, C., 2009. Age and the critical period hypothesis. ELT Journal,
April, 63(2), pp. 170-172.
Bailey, D., Bruer, J., Symons, F. & Lichtman, J., 2001. Critical thinking about
critical periods. 1st ed. Baltimore: Paul Brooke.
Flege, J., Yeni-Komshian, G. & Liu, S., 1999. Age constraints on second language
learning. Journal of Memory and Language, Volume 41, p. 78104.
Hakuta, K., Bialystok, E. & Wiley, E., 2003. Critical Evidence: A Test of the CriticalPeriod Hypothesis for Second-Language Acquisition. American Psychological
Society, January, 14(1), pp. 31-38.
Johnson, J., 1992. Critical period effects in second language acquisition: The
effect of written versus auditory materials in the assessment of grammatical
competence. Language Learning, Volume 42, p. 217248.
Johnson, J. & Newport, E., 1989. Critical period effects in second language
learning:The influence of maturational state on the acquisition of English as a
second language. Cognitive Psychology, Volume 21, p. 6099.
Johnstone, R., 2002. Addressing the age factor: Some implications for
language policy. Strasbourg, Council of Europe.
Long, M., 2005. Problems with supposed counter-evidence to the Critical Period
Hypothesis. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching,
Volume 43, pp. 287-317.
Scovel, T., 2000. The younger, the bettermyth and bilingual education. In: R.
D. Gonzalez & I. Melis, eds. Language Ideologies. Critical Perspectives on the
Official English Movement. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Singleton, D. & Ryan, L., 2004. Language Acquisition: The Age Factor. 2nd ed.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Stevens, G., 1999. Age at immigration and second language proficiency among
foreign-born adults. Language in Society, Volume 28, p. 555578.
Vanhove, J., 2013. The Critical Period Hypothesis in Second Language Acquisition:
A Statistical Critique and a Reanalysis. PLoS ONE, 8(7), pp. 1-15.