One of the central questions that SLA has tried to answer is why learners of a non-native language (L2) evince such a high degree of interindividual variation in their final attainment relative to the L2 components and skills they have acquired. In order to offer a satisfactory response to this key issue, SLA researchers have posited the existence of a set of individual factors of a very different nature, such as aptitude, motivation, attitude, personality, and intelligence, among others, that might explain such variation. However, one of the most obvious potential explanations for the lack of success of L2 learners compared to L1 learners is that the acquisition of a foreign language begins at a later age than that of the mother tongue does. Thus, it has been prevalently assumed that age itself is a predictor of second language proficiency.
This paper focuses on research which has been carried out on maturational constraints for SLA and hereby tries to find answers to various questions concerning age as a factor in SLA.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. The Age Factor in Second Language Acquisition
2.1 The Critical Period Hypothesis
2.2 Evidence for and against the Critical Period Hypothesis in Second Language Acquisition
2.2.1 The ‘Younger = Better’ Position
2.2.2 The ‘Older = Better’ Position
2.2.3 The ‘Younger = Better in Some Respects’ Position
2.2.4 The ‘Younger = Better in the Long Run’ Position
3. Explanations for Age-Related Differences in Second Language Acquisition
4. Conclusion
Research Objectives and Key Topics
This paper examines the influence of age on second language acquisition (SLA), specifically investigating whether an optimal age exists for learning a foreign language. It evaluates the validity of the Critical Period Hypothesis by analyzing conflicting empirical research and theoretical explanations regarding age-related differences in linguistic achievement.
- The Critical Period Hypothesis and its biological underpinnings
- Comparing ‘younger = better’ vs. ‘older = better’ learning positions
- Distinction between short-term rate of learning and long-term ultimate attainment
- Cognitive, social-psychological, and input-based explanations for age differences
- Practical implications for early language instruction in educational settings
Excerpt from the Book
2.1 The Critical Period Hypothesis
The original formulation of the CPH is based upon the work of the German-born American neurologist Eric Lenneberg (1967). The hypothesis implies that children have a special innate propensity for acquiring language that is determined by biological factors – so to speak a biological clock that limits the period during which natural language acquisition can take place. This assumption is based on the biological observation that the brain of a child is plastic whereas the brain of an adult is rigid and set. According to Lenneberg, during early childhood language appears to be more spread out across both brain hemispheres, but as the child grows older and the two hemispheres become increasingly specialised for certain functions, language gradually relocates, settling in the left one. The CPH holds that primary language acquisition must occur during a critical period which starts at about the age of 2 years and ends at puberty (around the age of 12 or 13) with the establishment of lateralisation of the language function.
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: Outlines the central problem of individual variation in second language acquisition and introduces the concept of the Critical Period Hypothesis as a primary focus.
2. The Age Factor in Second Language Acquisition: Details four divergent academic positions regarding the impact of age and provides an in-depth analysis of the Critical Period Hypothesis and related empirical studies.
3. Explanations for Age-Related Differences in Second Language Acquisition: Discusses alternative theoretical interpretations for observed age gaps, specifically social-psychological factors and the role of input.
4. Conclusion: Synthesizes the findings, noting that no absolute optimal age exists and offering practical reflections on the effectiveness of early language programs.
Key Words
Second Language Acquisition, SLA, Critical Period Hypothesis, CPH, Age Factor, Phonological Development, Syntax, Ultimate Attainment, Language Proficiency, Sensitive Period, Cognitive Development, Input Explanation, Lateralisation, Foreign Language Learning
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this academic paper?
The paper explores the impact of age on the success of second language acquisition and questions whether there is an optimal chronological starting point for learning a foreign language.
What are the core thematic fields covered?
The text focuses on linguistic theories regarding biological maturity, the debate between child versus adult superiority in language learning, and the differences between short-term acquisition rates and long-term mastery.
What is the central research question?
The author investigates whether the age of onset serves as a decisive predictor for the final linguistic attainment of learners and if there is sufficient empirical evidence to justify specific educational policies.
Which scientific methodologies are discussed?
The paper reviews various longitudinal and cross-sectional studies, including experimental tasks, observation of immigrant populations, and neurological research related to brain plasticity and lateralization.
What is covered in the main section of the work?
The main part analyzes the "Critical Period Hypothesis," contrasting the "younger equals better" position with "older equals better" arguments and exploring social and cognitive explanations for the findings.
Which keywords best characterize this work?
Key terms include Second Language Acquisition, Critical Period Hypothesis, Age Factor, Phonological Development, Syntax, and Ultimate Attainment.
How does the author interpret the "Competition Model" by Felix?
The author views Felix's model as a valuable attempt to incorporate cognitive development, though it acknowledges the model's weakness in explaining why adults often outperform children in the initial stages of SLA.
What is the author's stance on the "early start" educational reforms?
The author is cautious, noting that simply lowering the age of onset is no guarantee for native-like attainment and that success requires more complex measures like improved teacher training and increased instruction time.
- Quote paper
- Jasmina Murad (Author), 2006, Age as a Factor in Second Language Acquisition, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.hausarbeiten.de/document/66930
