Assignment

On
Critical Period Hypothesis (CPH) in Second Language Acquisition

Submitted to
Dr Sayeedur Rahman
Associate Professor
Coordinator MA in TESOL
BRAC Institute of Language (BIL)
BRAC University

Submitted by
Narottam Dev Shorma
ID: 15377008
MA in TESOL
BRAC Institute of Language (BIL)
BRAC University

Date of Submission: 09 March, 2016

Introduction

The critical period hypothesis is the subject of a long-standing debate in linguistics and language
acquisition over the extent to which the ability to acquire language is biologically linked to age.
The hypothesis claims that there is an ideal 'window' of time in a persons life to acquire
language in a linguistically rich environment, after which further language acquisition becomes
much more difficult and effortful.

Our paper is divided into three parts in the following manner:

Part - One defines Critical period hypothesis (CPH) and provides historical background of Critical
period hypothesis.

Part - Two deals with Recent studies in different contexts and their findings and

Part - Three describes our point of view in the light of the research studies we mentioned here.

Finally, in Conclusion part, we would like to sum up our thoughts regarding Critical Period
Hypothesis (CPH).

PART ONE

What is Critical period hypothesis (CPH)?

The critical period hypothesis states that the first few years of life is the crucial time in which an
individual can acquire a native language (L1) if presented with adequate stimuli.

Lenneberg's (1967) on Critical Period Hypothesis

Lenneberg theorized that the acquisition of language is an innate process determined by

biological factors which limit the critical period for acquisition of a language from
roughly two years of age to puberty.
Lenneberg believed that after lateralization (a process by which the two sides of the
brain develop specialized functions), the brain loses plasticity.
Lenneberg claimed that lateralization of the language function is normally completed at
puberty, making post adolescent language acquisition difficult
Lenneberg says that there are maturational constraints on the time a first language can
be acquired.If language acquisition does not occur by puberty, some aspects of language
can be learnt but full mastery cannot be achieved.

Brown (2007) defines CPH as a biological timetable during which, both first & second language
is more successfully accomplished.

1
Ellis (1997) defines CPH as a period during which target-language competence in an L2 can
only be achieved if learning commences before a certain age is reached. (e.g. the onset of
puberty)

Historical Background

The critical period hypothesis was first proposed by Montreal neurologist Wilder Penfield and
co-author Lamar Roberts in 1959.

It was popularized by Eric Lenneberg in 1967 with his famous book Biological Foundations of
Language. Lenneberg proposed that brain lateralization (the longitudinal fissure that separates
the brain into two distinct cerebral hemispheres) at puberty is the mechanism which closes
down the brain's ability to acquire language.

Another well-known person who supports the critical period hypothesis would be Noam
Chomsky, who believes that children are born with an inherited ability to learn any human
language.

According to Chomsky, every child has a language acquisition device or LAD which encodes the
major principles of a language and its grammatical structures into the childs brain.

Part Two
Research studies in different contexts

Researchers rationaled that if learners exposed to a second language after puberty were
deficient in their ultimate attainmentwhile learners acquiring the language before the
onset of puberty performed in a nativelike fashionthe effects of the critical period must
be responsible for this gap. To test this notion, early studies by Oyama (1978, as cited in
Johnson & Newport, 1989) and Patkowski (1980) focused on the ultimate attainment of
certain grammatical structures by immigrants who arrived in the United States at a variety
of ages. Both studies, finding that the age of a subjects arrival was the only variable which
strongly predicted his or her ultimate attainment in English, seemed to uphold the notion
that learning a second language after the close of the critical period results in its
incomplete mastery.

Study 1
Johnson and Newport (1989) sought to probe the relationship between the effects of
maturation and the ability of an individual to acquire a second language. They aimed at
either verifying or disproving the existence of age-related effects on second language
acquisition of grammar by establishing a correlation between age of first exposure to a
language and level of morphosyntactic accuracy in that language.

Forty-six native Chinese and Korean speakers who had arrived in the United States between

2
 the ages of 3 to 39 and had learned English as a second language were asked to determine
the grammaticality of a variety of English sentences in order to determine their respective
knowledge of English morphosyntax. Subjects were divided into 4 groups depending on their
age of arrival (age 3-7, age 8-10, age 11- 15, and age 17-39, respectively), and their overall
performance on this grammaticality judgment test was then examined for correlations
between age of arrival and test score.

Findings

Johnson and Newports (1989) study arrived at an important conclusion regarding the effects of
maturation on language acquisition. Johnson and Newports data showed a demonstrable
correlation between subjects age of arrival in the United States and their performance on the
test. While the ultimate attainment of subjects exposed to English between the ages of 3 and 7
was consistent with the performance of native speakers, those who arrived between the ages
of 8 and 10 scored highly overall, but universally lower than their younger counterparts. Again,
with the 11 to 15 years of age-at-arrival group, there was a perceptible drop in scores
compared to the younger groups, yet the 11 to 15 year-old group scored on average higher
than their adult counterparts. After the study Johnson and Newport (1989) simply stated,
Success in learning a language is almost entirely predicted by the age at which it begins (p.
81).

Furthermore, they argue that although there is widespread individual variation in the
competence of adult learners of a second language, a late age of first exposure to a second
language prevents native or native-like performance in that language.

None of the adult learners scored within the range of the native speakers or the 3 to 7 years of
age-at-arrival group (and only one scored within the range of the 8 to 10 years of age-at- arrival
group), allowing Johnson and Newport to surmise that after the closing of the critical period,
attaining a native level of proficiency in a second language is a virtual impossibility.

In order to examine the effects of maturation on pronunciation, multiple studies have been
conducted, again often using immigrants with various ages of arrival as subjects (e.g Flege,
Munro, & Mackay, 1995; Oyama, 1976; Thompson, 1991; Yeni-Komshian, Flege, & Liu, 1997).

Study -2

In his study, Thompson (1991) for his study surveyed 39 Russian-born subjects who had
immigrated to the United States between the ages of 4 and 42. Each of them was given
three types of speaking tasks:

1. reading a list of 20 sentences which were intentionally seeded with English sounds

3
 2. reading a 160-word passage which had not been seeded

3. speaking spontaneously for one minute about their activities on the day of the experiment.

The speech samples were then examined both by a group of native English speakers who had
little or no knowledge about or exposure to foreign languages and linguistics, and by a group
who was familiar with linguistics and had had frequent exposure to the Russian language. The
judges were asked to rate the samples on a scale from 1 (no foreign accent) to 5 (heavy
foreign accent).

Findings

Thompsons results pointed that subjects who got the exposure to English at early age spoke
consistently and considerably better than adult ones in term of foreign accent.

While none of the subjects were universally judged to speak English wholly without a foreign
accent, subjects with an early age of arrival scored consistently and considerably better than
subjects with a late age of arrival. In fact, although Thompsons study examined several other
variables to determine their influence on mastery of nativelike pronunciation (e.g., sex,
education in English, use of English at home and with friends, pro-American orientation, among
several others), she concluded that because of the extremely strong correlation between age of
arrival and a subjects ultimate attainment in pronunciation, relatively little could be drawn
from an analysis of the other independent variables.

Thompsons conclusion that the age at which [the immigrants] arrived in the U.S. was the best
indicator of the accuracy of their pronunciation in English (p. 195) points strongly to the notion
that maturation is overwhelmingly the most important factor in ultimate attainment in
pronunciation, and that a critical period proscribes late acquisition of a nativelike accent in a
second language.

Finally, Thompson concluded that the age at which [the immigrants] arrived in the U.S. was
the best indicator of the accuracy of their pronunciation in English (p. 195)

Research Study against CPH

Despite the strong evidence produced in the studies by Johnson and Newport (1989) and
Thompson (1991) supporting the existence of a critical period for second language acquisition,
important questions remain regarding the CPH. In opposition to Johnson and Newports (1989)
claim Long (1990) claims that the existence of a critical period in second language acquisition is
totally false.

4
He states, The easiest way to falsify [claims supporting] would be to produce learners who
have demonstrably attained native like proficiency despite having begun exposure well after
the closure of the hypothesized sensitive periods (p. 274).

Several studies (e.g., Bialystok, 1997; Birdsong, 1992; Birdsong & Molis, 2001; White &
Genesee, 1996) have used this logic to challenge the acceptance of the CPH.

White and Genesee (1996), seeking to determine whether highly proficient adult acquirers of a
second language were indeed at a nativelike level, they conducted a study on highly proficient
adult to determine whether acquirers of a L2 were indeed at a nativelike level, tested 89
speakers of English as L2.

They used a grammaticality judgment task, a question formation task, and an interview task in
which they were evaluated on their performance in terms of pronunciation, morphosyntax,
fluency, choice of vocabulary, and overall nativeness.

Findings

The results of White and Genesees (1996) study provided them with ample evidence to
controvert the CPH.

Several of the subjects not only demonstrate an ability to achieve near-native levels of
competence despite their age of first exposure taking place after the purported critical period,
but White and Genesee also found that the performance of [these] near-native subjects on the
grammaticality judgment task, both in terms of their accuracy and their speed, was
indistinguishable from that of the native speakers, as was their performance on the written
production task (p. 258). White and Genesee do not deny the commonly held belief that a
negative correlation exists between age of acquisition and ultimate attainment in a second
language; those who learn a language at a young age, they admit, are more likely to achieve
near-native competence than those who begin learning in adulthood. They do, however,
challenge the notion that a critical period exists in the domain of second language acquisition
which bars nativelike proficiency when language is learned after its closing. White and Genesee
argue that the existence of adult learners of a language whose competence is indistinguishable
from that of native speakers proves that adults have access to the language learning
mechanisms to which children have access, and disproves the notion that after the closing of a
critical period, nativelike performance in a second language is unattainable.

5
CPH in Chinese context

Many empirical studies on CPH (Dong, 2003; Wang, 2003; Shu, 2003; Lu, 2004; Liu, 2005; Xin &
Zhou 2006; Zhao & Zou, 2008) have been found in Chinese EFL context.

The results of these empirical studies are diverse; however, more studies support that no
critical period determines success in learning English in Chinese EFL context. For example, Zhao
and Zou (2008) conducted a qualitative analysis of 42 autobiographies of contemporary
renowned foreign language experts in China to examine the age related factors that may have
led to success in foreign language learning.

This finding does not support the CPH and argues that the other important factors such as
motivation, teachers and language aptitude may decide L2 success for the learners.

The result of another study (Wang 2003, Liu 2005) shows that there does not really exist a so-
called optimum age for Chinese learners. The author thus proposes that a strong motivation,
proper learning strategies and intense efforts are decisive factors in successfully learning a
foreign language.

There are two similar empirical studies whose findings support the CPH in Chinese EFL context.
Lu (2004) and Xin and Zhou ( 2006) analyzed the influence of SLA beginning age on the
postgraduates English level and found a positive correlation between early starting age and
these postgraduates English proficiency. Thus, they suggest that, the initial English program
should be begun in elementary school rather than in junior high. In addition, the optimal timing
for the program is not as early as possible. Grade 3 is a possible starting point, but Grade 4 or 5
may be more preferable.

Part Three
Our point of view

After reviewing the recent studies, it is clearly to be found that recent studies go beyond the
scope of traditional inquiries and combine formal tests of competence with measures of
performance. The researchers seek to investigate more and more variables concerned with
CPH, especially on learners factors such as first languages and their cultures, learners level of
education and the age of arrival at a foreign culture, different target language, etc. After
reviewing data on both sides of the controversy, we believe that critical period in second
language acquisition is not relevant to proficiency level attainment.

Though we explained some studies in favour of the existence of CPH, we think that there are
too many variables with strong factual support that explain second language acquisition
differences in learners, and too few factual explanations of the critical period theory to
warrant its belief.

6
We feel that the study of second language acquisition would greatly benefit from additional
studies examining all possible variables that result in different second language proficiency.
Finally, it is our hope that our colleagues who wish to tackle a second language will not
dissuade by the prospect of a critical period being passed, because there is just not enough
factual evidence to support it at this time.

Conclusion

Despite huge debate CPH still matters in Language acquisition.Along with CPH, learner factors
like age, motivation, anxiety, culture, aptitude, cognitive style, learning style are also
important in language acquisition. We think that the dispute on CPH in L2 studies will not be
stopped and it needs to be further studied from multi-perspectives, especially from the social-
congitive one. It thus will also lead SLA researchers to attend more studies to learner
language. (eg. Hakuta et al., 2003; Hasselgreen, 2005; etc.)

***

7
References

Andy Schouten; The Critical Period Hypothesis: Support, Challenge, and Reconceptualization;

Published by Teachers College, Columbia University, Working Papers in TESOL & Applied

Linguistics, 2009, Vol. 9, No. 1

Esim Grsoy; The Critical Period Hypothesis Revisited: The Implications for Current Foreign

Language Teaching to Young Learners; Journal of Language Teaching and Research, Vol.

2, No. 4, pp. 757-762, July 2011 2011 ACADEMY PUBLISHER Manufactured in Finland.

Rahman Sayeedur; Course Reader; BRAC University, 2016

Wuhan Zhu; The Critical Period of L2 Acquisition Studies: Implications for Researchers in

Chinese EFL Context; School of English, the University of Sheffield, Journal of Language

Teaching and Research, Vol. 2, No. 6, pp. 1217-1226, November 2011Manufactured in

Finland.

www.ling.ohio-state.edu/~park/371/materials/101ciritical_period.doc

www.slideshare.net/chitra101/my-critical-period-hypothesis-cph

www.slideshare.net/emineozkurt3/critical-period-hypothesis-33757412