READING PREVIEW
CHAPTER 2: AGE
Summary:
L1 and L2 learning outcomes vary greatly in terms of age. One of the major focuses of SLA research has been to gain insight into the relationship between age and L2 acquisition in an effort to answer the question “is there an optimal age to learn a second language?” Empirical studies of the age factor in SLA have yielded a wide range of results, some suggesting that age is a universal, biological factor in L2 acquisition, others concluding that individual and social factors are involved. Further research in this area is necessary because evidence of a connection (or not) between age and L2 acquisition can guide language and educational policies, in particular, bilingual education policies.
Key Concepts:
- The critical period hypothesis suggests that after a certain age, it is impossible to achieve native-like ultimate attainment in the L2. Studies of feral children and deaf individuals who experienced postponed L1 acquisition suggest that a critical or sensitive period indeed exists for L1 acquisition. Likewise, biologically based critical periods are present in other species (eg. kittens, ducks, owls). Acquisition of syntactic and semantic functions of language is fundamentally different; research shows that syntax involves a critical period whereas semantics does not. However, neurocognitive studies of language and the brain are difficult to interpret in terms of a critical period for language learning.
- Research suggests that adolescents and adults acquire an L2 at a faster pace, but that children eventually “catch up” and surpass the older learners. A possible explanation for this could be that learning contexts (naturalistic vs. instructed, foreign language vs. second language) influence the frequency and type of L2 input, in turn affecting universal factors such as age.
- Correlation studies looking at age show that learners who begin acquiring their L2 before puberty are more successful in achieving ultimate attainment. However, exceptionally successful late L2 learners who begin learning their L2 in their 20s or later and indeed achieve a native-like final state in terms of L2 phonology and morphosyntax do exist, and may even be more common than previously thought. This evidence challenges the critical period hypothesis. Other findings reveal that the age factor is not influenced by biology or nature, but rather socio-affective and environmental factors.
Reflecion:
This chapter definitely cleared up some confusion that I had about age and language learning. Until now, I thought that there was a much stronger body of evidence in favor of the critical period hypothesis. I was expecting to read about more clear-cut findings saying that, basically, children acquire language more quickly and with greater ease, therefore, “the earlier, the better.” And now I see that there’s a lot of counter-evidence and many questions that still need answers. More empirical research in this area is necessary.
I found it interesting that in instructed, foreign language contexts late starters (11 years old) actually achieved better learning results than early starters (8 years old). This underscores the importance of context and illustrates that, like many theories and implications coming from SLA, there is no “one size fits all” solution.
I didn’t find any parts of the chapter particularly confusing or difficult to follow, but there are a lot of examples from research studies both for and against a critical period or age factor throughout the reading. I think it would be helpful to start by reading the summary and then go to the beginning of the chapter…hopefully the reading previews will help too!
7 comments:
I agree with you that it's interesting (disappointed to me as an ex-elementary school teacher!) to know that early learners don't seem to have an advantage (at least in the short period of time)over later learners in the FL context. There is a movement in Japan that English should be introduced as a mandatory subject to all elementary schools. Although there are many people who are opposed to this idea, it's very likely to happen. When it happens, how should we tackle English teaching knowing that early start doesn't guarantee successful FL learning?
Megumi's question is really interesting... I would like to suggest that we all discuss it in class next week after we talk about this chapter.
I really like your Pre-Reading material. It's very easy to understand and concise.
And yes, I agree, Megumi's questions is very interesting. Especially because I have a background in early childhood education.
Thanks for your preview, which helps me understand the reading more easily. It may be a little off the topic, but the followings trigger my curiosity.
It is interesting to know the new term (to me ><), "sensitive period" The term seems more moderate and open to L2 learners (including me) who passed so far so-called “critical period”, providing them with hope of being restored. I am wondering when and why the term “sensitive period” started to be used.
It seems that most studies deal with phonology or morphosyntax to measure "native-likeness" when investigating the relationship of age and language acquisition. Considering "Communicative Competence", don't they need to count on such other factors like pragmatic competence for "ultimate attainment"? Also, "World English" seems blur the definition of "native-likeness".
Comments on Megumi's - To my knowledge, Like Japan, English is also a mandatory subject to elementary students except 1st and 2nd graders in Korea. Intesting topic to talk about.
The case of successful late L2 learners
Although there are strong arguments advocating the notion of critical period for L2 acquisition, it was proved by some researchers that some late L2 learners can achieve native-like or near native-like levels in their L2. I believe this information gives significant implications for further research as well as tremendous hope for language teachers.
An example of such case would be Julie, an exceptionally successful late L2 learner of Arabic, who we read about in the chapter 2. It is quite impressive that she was able to use Arabic as her dominant language, after the third year of residence in Cairo. Have we ever experienced such thing after learning a foreign or second language for many years? Remember Julie received no formal instruction in Arabic.
Fueled by this unique case of L2 learning, I would like to know more about to what extent context and motivation moderate the universal constraint (e.g. age). It would be also interesting to discuss what could have been the contributing factors for Julie or other successful L2 learners to attain a near-native like level in their L2.
I am always skeptical about the term "native" and its relations, however mutated, such as "near-native" and "native-like".
Correction: in fact, I'd never had a problem with the term until I started teaching and had to grapple with the term myself, or rather, be made to grapple with it even though I saw no need to.
All of a sudden, I was either a native English speaker or I wasn't, and if I was, then certain privileges and perks would naturally follow me. If I wasn't, then I was wished the best of luck!
Given not much of a choice between two extremes, I started calling myself a native speaker - I had to be a native speaker of something - and out of the three different languages and a dialect of one of them that I grew up speaking, I could only choose one, so I chose English (although frankly, English was probably the last of the lot, chronologically speaking, even though I was "fortunate" enough to come from a multilingual family and society where I had constant exposure to the language).
Why, I was told I "sounded" like one - I guess I could pass off as British to untrained American, Australian, Canadian, New Zealander and even British ears - both phonologically and morphosyntactically.
Yet, I am equally comfortable speaking "Singlish" - which may be said to be a local English creole - phonologically and morphosyntactically as well.
As Prof Ortega took pains to reiterate, many of us grew up bilingual, even multilingual (which, as we've seen, does not mean we're either equally good at all the languages or that we'd learnt them all at the same time or intensity, even for those of us, who basically grew up with these different languages, like me), then what of us folks?
How do we bi- and multilinguals cope with our second language(s)? To be quite honest, I never learnt how to speak like a Brit until I was about 15, and even then, not formally, only by listening to BBC (which hadn't tried to teach me to speak like one), yet I could pass off as Brit. How so?
Like Miyung suggested, maybe because I wanted to (and oh yes, I did want to, although as far as I can recall, which is probably from when I was about 4 or 5, I'd wanted, and I consciously tried, to sound like an American, but I think that didn't work out as well because if anything, I could avail myself to BBC than NPR) - (self-)motivation.
As I write this and throw my thoughts back some 30 years, I am amazed that I ended up this way because I wanted to so many years ago!
Or really, only because the so-called "native" speakers were all untrained???
Did the fact that I already spoke (some form of) English help me to sound more authentic? Probably. At the very least, I'd have been quite familiar with the sounds, even if I couldn't make them. And certainly, when I could throw in idiomatic expressions as appropriate, I was judged (against all odds when you look at me) to be a native speaker, and lo and behold, if it was British, all the more so.
My thoughts usually travel much faster than the speed at which I talk, much more at which I type, so, guess the point is, while I am not ignorant enough not to realize that there is still a lot of hooha being a "native" speaker, especially of English, that very term itself is fraught with many "pukas", and is to me an eyesore.
And, if we can't even or have yet to define "native" - since English is already an international language, i.e. with many acceptable varieties - then how do we even measure whether an L2 learner has achieved L1 fluency (whatever that means) in the L2, (and speaking for English, against which standard variety?), whether using the critical period or some other hypothesis, especially with regard to the bi- and multilinguals (for whom English is one of their languages), who supposedly form the majority of L2 learners?
Other languages (or language combinations excluding English, or at least where English is not the L2) would certainly fascinate me more, if only because data on them would be rarer, and because there is less debate on what "native" means, since the chasm (if any) is much narrower (which is obviously true for a language which is yet internationalized).
Wow! Reading everybody's postings and comments is quite insightful. This blog provides a great opportunity for people to express their opinions, ideas, and questions. I'm impressed and enlightened by everybody's postings. Thanks everybody! :)
Post a Comment