Second language acquisition, in particular English, is nowadays more important than ever before. As a consequence, it is of great importance to improve second language education at school. In order to do this, learner factors as for instance age, motivation or aptitude have to be considered more closely.
The present research paper considers the question if second language learning can be affected by age, particularly if there is a critical period that can affect the learning success in a negative
way. The common sense that children are the most successful language learners will be examined and compared to contrary opinions. In a last step, the results will be used to draw
conclusions for second language instruction.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. First and Second Language Acquisition
2.1. First Language Acquisition
2.1.1. The Behaviourist Theory
2.1.2. The Innatist Theory
2.2. Second Language Acquisition
3. The Critical Period Hypothesis
3.1. The Critical Period in First Language Acquisition – The Case “Genie”
3.2. The Critical Period Hypothesis in Second Language Acquisition
3.3. The Optimal or Sensitive Period
3.4. Younger vs. Older Learners
3.4.1. The “Younger = Better” Position
3.4.2. The “Older = Better” Position
3.4.3. “Younger = Better in the Long Run” Position
4. Implication for Second Language Teaching
4.1. The Constructivist Classroom
4.2. Second Language Instruction from a CLIL-Perspective
5. Conclusion
Research Objectives and Key Topics
The primary objective of this research paper is to examine the "Age-Factor" in second language acquisition, specifically investigating the existence of a critical period for language learning and evaluating how these findings can be practically applied to improve instructional strategies in the classroom.
- Theoretical foundations of first and second language acquisition.
- Critical analysis of the Critical Period Hypothesis and its applicability to second language learning.
- Comparative examination of "Younger vs. Older" learner performance.
- Implementation of Constructivist and CLIL methodologies in second language teaching.
- The impact of individual variables such as motivation, aptitude, and learning environment.
Excerpt from the Book
3.1. The Critical Period in First Language Acquisition – The Case “Genie”
Despite the difficulties to find evidence for the Critical Period, there are cases of children who were not exposed to language in early childhood. One, which supports the strong “use it or lose it” version of the critical period hypothesis, is the case of a young girl, who was found when she was 13 years old, called Genie. Genie had spent almost 11 years alone in a darkened room, tied to a chair and her father forbade any contact with her. He himself only barked at her and beat her if she made any noise (Lightbown and Spada 2013). Therefore she was physically and mentally undeveloped and without language. After her discovery she received a therapy, rehabilitation and was taught language. Interestingly she made remarkable progress in becoming socialized but she was unable to develop language properly. “After five years of exposure to language, Genie’s language was not like that of a typical 5-year old” (Lightbown & Spada, 2013, p. 23).
The case of Genie seems to support the Critical Period Hypothesis, but it is questionable whether Genies lack of linguistic competence is only the result of her deprivation of language exposure (Johnson & Newport in Ortega 2011). (Lenneberg, 1972) for example, reports about a six-year-old child that was found without language, who could make progress very quickly and acquire language already after nine months, while another child, also found without language at the age of six who could hardly speak until the age of 10 ½ when it died. The behaviour of the child is indicative of a severe psychological disorder, which could explain the inability to language completely.
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: This chapter outlines the growing importance of second language acquisition and introduces the central research focus on the influence of age and the critical period hypothesis.
2. First and Second Language Acquisition: This section reviews language learning theories, specifically Behaviourism and the Innatist theory, to contrast how first and second languages are acquired.
3. The Critical Period Hypothesis: This chapter critically examines the hypothesis that a biological window for language acquisition exists, utilizing case studies like "Genie" and discussing various learner age positions.
4. Implication for Second Language Teaching: This part applies the research findings to classroom practice, highlighting Constructivist approaches and Content Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) as effective methods.
5. Conclusion: This final chapter synthesizes the findings, noting that while age is a factor, it is not an absolute predictor, and emphasizes the role of motivation and learning environments.
Keywords
Second Language Acquisition, Critical Period Hypothesis, Age-Factor, Innatist Theory, Universal Grammar, Language Instruction, Constructivist Classroom, CLIL, Motivation, Aptitude, First Language Acquisition, Language Proficiency, Cognitive Development, Metalinguistic Knowledge, Instructional Strategies.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the central focus of this research paper?
The paper focuses on the "Age-Factor" in second language acquisition, investigating whether a critical period exists that limits or dictates the success of learning a language after puberty.
What are the key themes explored in the work?
Key themes include the biological basis of language acquisition, the comparison between first and second language learning, the distinction between "younger" and "older" learners, and pedagogical strategies like Constructivism and CLIL.
What is the primary research goal?
The goal is to determine if age functions as a predictor for language learning success and to identify how research data can be leveraged to improve teaching methods in schools.
Which scientific methods are employed?
The paper utilizes a literature review and analysis of previous studies and case examples (such as "Genie" and "Julie") to confront conflicting positions on the critical period hypothesis.
What topics are covered in the main section?
The main section covers language learning theories (Behaviourist vs. Innatist), the critical period hypothesis in first and second language contexts, and practical teaching frameworks designed to bridge the gap between school and real-life language use.
Which keywords define this work?
Primary keywords include Second Language Acquisition, Critical Period Hypothesis, Age-Factor, Constructivist Classroom, CLIL, and motivation.
What does the case study of "Genie" specifically demonstrate?
The case of "Genie" is used to provide evidence for the strong version of the critical period hypothesis, illustrating the difficulties of acquiring language after being deprived of exposure during early childhood.
How does the "Julie" case study challenge the critical period theory?
The case of "Julie," who achieved native-like proficiency in Arabic as an adult without formal instruction, serves as an exception that suggests age is not an immutable barrier to successful language acquisition.
How does the paper propose improving second language instruction?
The paper proposes incorporating more "natural" learning environments into the classroom, specifically through the use of Constructivist teaching and the CLIL approach, to increase learner motivation and effective input.
- Quote paper
- Jana Schmidt (Author), 2013, The Age-Factor in Second Language Acquisition. Is There a Critical Period?, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.hausarbeiten.de/document/300766
