1 SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

THE CRITICAL PERIOD HYPOTHESIS AND ITS EFFECTS ON SECOND

LANGUAGE ACQUISITION.
By
Makoto Tokudome

This article talks about the overview of the critical period hypothesis research in SLA and
how those studies have shown that CPH is not necessarily the case when it comes to the
difficulties in adult language learners to master the target language. Tokudome explained that
CPH in principle means that a time frame in which learning a second language is at its peak and
that learning the language is said to be easier and faster. If learners attempt at learning a second
language outside of this time frame, they will find it more difficult and will not be able to master
the language. He mentioned that some researchers claimed that the critical period is before the
puberty age beyond which acquiring a second language will be header.

The idea of CPH was based on Lemerberg (1967) study of aphasiac-patients or patients
whose language abilities are compromised due to injuries or sickness. He found that if the injury
or sickness occurred before puberty the chances of those patients to reacquire their language
abilities are higher compared to those who suffered aphasiac in adulthood. Penfield, Roberts and
Lemerberg believed that the ability to learn a language significantly diminished beyond late
childhood.

The article mentioned that Chiswick & Miller (2000) claimed that at ages below the
critical period native-like proficiency in language learning can be achieved and that language
acquisition can occur merely by exposure instead of through tutoring or that language skills are
easier to acquire. At ages above the critical period, second language learning is far more
challenging. CPH is also viewed as the way to explain why certain individuals speak L2 with
foreign accents (Flege, 1999).

However, Tokudome also mentioned in his article that not enough studies have proven
this hypothesis. Although, on the surface children appear to be better and faster learners in
learning a second language than adults but in reality there are cases whereby adult learners excel
tremendously as well. That is why researchers have some contradicting views on it. The article

1
 2 SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

mentioned that Bongaerts (2005), said that to prove the existence of CPH two forms of evidence
must be present (1) there should be a discontinuity in the slope of the decline in L2 proficiency
situated around the terminus of the critical period, and (2) no second language starting at the
terminus period should demonstrate achievement of native-like levels of ultimate L2 attainment..
The lack of that evidence caused many contradictory findings on the reality of CPH.

Researchers claimed that native-like accent is impossible unless exposure is given at an

early age probably before 6 in many individuals and about twelve years old for the others.
However, very high standard of proficiency can be achieved at later age but probably not to the
extent of being native-like. (Long, 1990). If CPH does exist it would affect adult learners and
that their level of mastery will be below that of a native speaker. However, Tokudome argued
that in reality there are circumstances in which late L2 learners who have achieved native-like
proficiency.

Lastly, in the article, the writer put forth the idea that second language acquisition does
not rely solely on when the language is learned (age) but how it is learned. Other factors such as
environment, motivation, extreme exposure, demand of their profession and complete
immersion. Play significant role in the success of second language acquisition not just primarily
on maturational factor.

2
 3 SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

CRITICAL REVIEW

On the surface we do observe these differences between young children and adults when
it comes to second language acquisition. At first glance children tend to learn a new language
better and faster than adults do. They also seem to be able to attain native-like proficiency if
given very early and constant exposure to the said language. Fundamentally this is what sparks
the notion of CPH which means that there is a certain period of time where language learning is
at its utmost peak which is before puberty. During that time second language learning is
definitely going to be successful and beyond which learners are doomed to failure.

However, if we take a closer look we could see that CPH is not always the case. There are
individuals or adults who start later in life in learning a second language but manage to achieve
higher level of that language even up to the point of being native-like. This certainly make the
idea of CPH becomes invalid. However little the figure is, if there are adults who successfully
acquire a second language when they begin learning after the age of puberty, it definitely
counteracts the legitimacy of a CPH (Birdsong, 1999; White & Genesee, 1996).

In my own point of view I strongly think that CPH is not the only reason or factor that
can be used to explain the success or the failure of acquiring a second language. I think that
many other factors come into play. Marinova-Todd (2003) found in her study that although we
cannot entirely overlook the age factor in language acquisition, its influence must be measured in
unison with cognitive and affective factors. She suggested that the way or how we learn a second
language is more substantial for L2 ultimate proficiency then the time or when we learn them.in
fact, one of the most noticeable factors that could affect language acquisition is motivation.
Nikolov & Djigunovic (2006), suggested that for most of the L2 learners, the target language
was a part of their profession or that they have a strong integrative motivation to be proficient
and to be part of the L2 society. Other than that they also stated that complete immersion in the
target language environment by which learners are exposed to the language for a long period of
time can in the end lead to native-like proficiency. If the adult learners have really high desire
and will to learn the language and be proficient at it then I think it is not impossible for them to
reach native-like mastery.

3
 4 SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

Furthermore, I agree with the point that the writer mentioned in his article that a decline
in language proficiency does exist across age. However, the decline has been proven to be
gradual. Research has yet to record a rapid drop in L2 ability at the end of the critical period.
This caused contradicting views on CPH. In addition, as mentioned earlier many research that
has been done on adults L2 learners that have demonstrated native-like pronunciation and
grammar proficiency well beyond the puberty age further proved that they are not affected by
any time frame of language learning.

As a conclusion, I definitely agree that more research must be done on the critical period
hypothesis. There are many missing links that can be used as evidence in proving the existence
of a critical period. The conclusion is that there is insufficient evidence to accept the claim that
mastery of a second language is determined wholly, or even primarily by maturational factors
(Bialystok, 1997). I believe that if an adult chooses to start learning a second language there is no
time limit for them to start it. I strongly believe that age is not the sole factors that could affect
language acquisition but other factors such as motivation, environment, immersion and many
more can undoubtedly affect the successful of acquiring a second language.

REFERENCES

1. Tokudome, M. (2010). The Critical Period Hypothesis and its Effects on Second Language
Acquisition. TPFLE Volume 14, No. 1, 18-27.
2. Bialystok, E. (1997). The structure of age: In search of barriers to second language
acquisition. Second Language Research, 13, 116-137.
3. Nikolov, M. & Djigunovic, J. M. (2006). Recent research on age, second language
acquisition and early foreign language learning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 26,
234-260.
4. White, L. & Genesee, F. (1996). How native is near-native? The issue of ultimate attainment
in adult second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 12, 238-265.
5. Birdsong, D. (Ed.) (1999). Second language acquisition and the critical period hypothesis.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.