New Scrap

Name: Meraflor N.
Montajes
Course: MAEA 2-1
Learning, Insights, and Contributions
Actually, in making our empirical study entitled “School Environmental

Activities and its Influence on Attitudes towards Students and Teachers” I
helped-out in making chapter 1 up to 5. I used to research and edit the
conceptual framework, review of related literature, presentation, analysis
and interpretation of data and recommendation.
Well, in conceptual framework, I gathered the ideas and concepts from

the experts who wrote the dissertations, researches and thesis works. For
the related literature I researched from the internet and studies similarly on
the empirical study that we made. On the other hand, I used to assist in the
data-gathered of our study in interpreting and analyzing the data while in
the last chapter I was the one who made the recommendation based on our
conclusion of the raised problems in school environmental activities and its
influence on attitudes towards students and teachers.
As I investigated the empirical, I’ve learned a lot. First, I knew how to

deal with the other members by sharing our ideas and opinions every time
we gathered as one in Graduate School Library. And we had some fun at the
same time, too. We were enjoying actually, the time we spent so much in
study-making though we could still feel the pressure. Second, I knew how to
manage our time wisely especially all of us that are came from far places.
We handled it by texting and calling time to time with our teammates just to
finish our empirical study in the deadline. Third, I learned so much how to be
patient, and understanding in every chapter we made. Because often times
we tend to get wrong in computation, grammars and etc. of course, we
should edit it time to time just to give the precise and comprehensive
information to our adviser.
Furthermore, the insights there, through this study we can able to

broaden our knowledge as teachers and administrators to be in the future in
terms of environmental activities. These activities actually serve as one of
the solutions in solving the environmental issues. So, it gives awareness and
inclusive information not only to the teachers, students but the entire people
who are living in this community. For the students, it will help them in
promoting environmental awareness too. It will serve as a guide in
supporting the school environmental activities at present and in the future.
Learning Gained From the Seminars/Workshops
As a student, I learned a lot from the seminars/workshops

that we had last January 2009. It helped me to broaden my
knowledge in every topic that I’ve heard from the different
speakers. Actually, they gave me an intensive discussion and
comprehensive information in developing more our professional
growth development not only as a teacher but an administrator to
be in the future.
In the first two seminars held at Bukidnon State University

Gymnasium, the topics given by the different brilliant speakers
were merely focusing on professional education. As teacher, it
served me as a guide in developing our professionalisms
considering of course the code of ethics in education. The
educators are said to be the models of the youth however, today
we should not only consider our tasks and responsibilities at
home, in school but also in community. The speakers emphasized
the extension of duties of teachers in community and the entire
society. The lectures actually helped me to mold as teacher and
leader to be in the future. It helped the teachers and instructors
to strengthen their capabilities and skills for the transformation
and betterment of the students, co-teachers and other people in
terms of education.
Well, they also emphasized the major principles in teaching

that since the educational environment not only confined with the
classroom but in the community as well, so today teachers should
deliver already comprehensive or in depth discussions to the
students with the use of modern learning. This modern learning
has something to do with technology. Teachers should be
technological-friendly in order to build up the innovative learning
in school and community. They should be up-dated and creative
in giving school activities and definitely still be guided accordingly
with the values of education. Teachers should also teach the
learners professionally and ethically in order to attain quality
education. In short, values should be integrated and should be
shared accordingly and most especially in technological aspect in
this generation.
Of course, by considering those factors we can have a

skillful, well-productive and transformative students, graduates,
teachers and better citizens in our society.
Furthermore, in the last seminar held at Kibawe tourism hall

in Kibawe, Bukidnon, the speakers elaborated more on the
teaching strategies and test construction. Teachers also should
be well-informed in constructing test. They should follow the
correct format in order to have standard questionnaires in our
institution. Teachers should have a wider knowledge not only in
making questions but in methodologies, too. Well, they should
vary the strategies or techniques in teaching subject matters to
the students so that the discussion given will be remembered
always and interesting most of the time. They should be experts
and knowledgeable enough in their chosen fields. Once the
teacher has the capability to teach, expert on his field, strongly
committed and dedicated on his work quality education is not
hard to reach. Perhaps, teachers should practice more and
enhance more with their skills and abilities through trainings and
seminars and absolutely something like these seminars that we
had last month. It really helped us to be transformed and create
something new with our professions as well. New, that is
something different.
April 29, 2009
Mr. Marcwin Dorado

Chief Operating Officer
System Technology Institute
Poblacion, Valencia City
THRU: Ms. Louidel Pagas

Academic Head
System Technology Institute
Valencia City
Dear Sir:
Greetings!
I am Ms. Sharon Diana T. Lorono, a full-time Information Technology instructor at STI-Valencia

would like to inform the school that I will not sign the contract anymore for the incoming school
year 2009-2010 due to some circumstances and this condition
As a part of STI-Valencia for two and half years I would like to extend also my heartfelt
gratitude towards the opportunities given by the company. Thank you so much for allowing me
to render my service for a short period of time. It really broadened my knowledge and expertise
in enhancing my potentials and capabilities in this chosen profession.
By working with your organization, the teaching’s prospect is highly appreciated and remains to
be remembered whatever chances will come in my way for the incoming months and years.
Again, thank you and more power!
Sincerely yours,
Ms. Meraflor N. Montajes

STI-Valencia Facult
Critical Period Hypothesis
The Critical Period Hypothesis refers to 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 to acquire language in a linguistically rich environment,
after which this is no longer possible.
The Critical Period Hypothesis states that the first few years of life is the crucial time in which an
individual can acquire a first language if presented with adequate stimuli. If language input doesn't occur
until after this time, the individual will never achieve a full command of language — especially
grammatical systems.
The evidence for such a period is limited, and support stems largely from theoretical arguments and
analogies to other critical periods in biology such as visual development, but nonetheless is widely
accepted. The nature of this phenomenon, however, has been one of the most fiercely debated issues in
psycholinguistics and cognitive science in general for decades. Some writers have suggested a "sensitive"
or "optimal" period rather than a critical one; others dispute the causes (physical maturation, cognitive
factors). The duration of the period also varies greatly in different accounts. Steven Pinker, in his book
The Language Instinct, states that “acquisition of a normal language is guaranteed for children up to the
age of six, is steadily compromised from then until shortly after puberty, and is rare thereafter” (Pinker
1994, p. 298).
In second language acquisition, the strongest evidence for the critical period hypothesis is in the study of
accent, where most older learners do not reach a native-like level. However, under certain conditions,
native-like accent has been observed, suggesting that accent is affected by multiple factors, such as
identity and motivation, rather than a critical period biological constraint (Moyer, 1999; Bongaerts et al.,
1995; Young-Scholten, 2002).
The Critical Period Hypothesis was first proposed by Montreal neurologist Wilder Penfield and co-author
Lamar Roberts in a 1959 paper Speech and Brain Mechanisms, and was popularised by Eric Lenneberg in
1967 with Biological Foundations of Language. Lenneberg proposed brain lateralisation at puberty as the
mechanism that closes down the brain's ability to acquire language, though this has since been widely
disputed. Other notable proponents of the Critical Period Hypothesis include Noam Chomsky.
Linguist Eric Lenneberg (1964) stated that the crucial period of language acquisition ends around the age
of 4-5 years. He claimed that if no language is learned before then, it could never be learned in a normal
and fully functional sense. This was called the "critical period hypothesis."
An interesting example of this is the case of Genie, also known as "The Wild Child". A thirteen-year-old
victim of lifelong child abuse, Genie was discovered in her home on November 4th, 1970, strapped to a
potty chair and wearing diapers. She appeared to be entirely without language. Her father had judged her
retarded at birth and had chosen to isolate her, and so she had remained until her discovery.
It was an ideal (albeit horrifying) opportunity to test the theory that a nurturing environment could
somehow make up for a total lack of language past the age of 12. She was unable to acquire language
completely, although the degree to which she acquired language is disputed.[1]
Detractors of the "Critical Period Hypothesis" point out that in this example and others like it (see Feral
children), the child is hardly growing up in a nurturing environment, and that the lack of language
acquisition in later life may be due to the results of a generally abusive environment rather than being
specifically due to a lack of exposure to language.
A more up-to-date view of the Critical Period Hypothesis is represented by the University of Maryland,
College Park instructor Robert DeKeyser. DeKeyser argues that although it is true that there is a critical
period, this does not mean that adults cannot learn a second language perfectly, at least on the syntactic
level. DeKeyser talks about the role of language aptitude as opposed to the critical period.[citation needed]
[edit] Second language acquisition
The theory has often been extended to a critical period for second language acquisition, although this is
much less widely accepted. Certainly, older learners of a second language rarely achieve the native-like
fluency that younger learners display, despite often progressing faster than children in the initial stages.
David Singleton (1995) states that in learning a second language, "younger = better in the long run," but
points out that there are many exceptions, noting that five percent of adult bilinguals master a second
language even though they begin learning it when they are well into adulthood — long after any critical
period has presumably come to a close.
While the window for learning a second language never completely closes, certain linguistic aspects
appear to be more affected by the age of the learner than others. For example, adult second-language
learners nearly always retain an immediately-identifiable foreign accent, including some who display
perfect grammar (Oyama 1976). Some writers have suggested a younger critical age for learning
phonology than for syntax. Singleton (1995) reports that there is no critical period for learning vocabulary
in a second language. Robertson (2002) observed that factors other than age may be even more significant
in successful second language learning, such as personal motivation, anxiety, input and output skills,
settings and time commitment.
On reviewing the published material, Bialystok and Hakuta (1994) conclude that second-language
learning is not necessarily subject to biological critical periods, but "on average, there is a continuous
decline in ability [to learn] with age."
Experimental and observational studies
How children acquire native language (L1) and the relevance of this to foreign language (L2) learning has
long been debated. Although evidence for L2 learning ability declining with age is controversial, a
common notion is that children learn L2s easily, whilst older learners rarely achieve fluency. This
assumption stems from ‘critical period’ (CP) ideas. A CP was popularised by Eric Lenneberg in 1967 for
L1 acquisition, but considerable interest now surrounds age effects on second language acquisition
(SLA). SLA theories explain learning processes and suggest causal factors for a possible CP for SLA,
mainly attempting to explain apparent differences in language aptitudes of children and adults by distinct
learning routes, and clarifying them through psychological mechanisms. Research explores these ideas
and hypotheses, but results are varied: some demonstrate pre-pubescent children acquire language easily,
and some that older learners have the advantage, whilst others focus on existence of a CP for SLA. Recent
studies (e.g. Mayberry and Lock, 2003) have recognised certain aspects of SLA may be affected by age,
whilst others remain intact. The objective of this study is to investigate whether capacity for vocabulary
acquisition decreases with age.
A review of SLA theories and their explanations for age-related differences is necessary before
considering empirical studies. The most reductionist theories are those of Penfield and Roberts (1959) and
Lenneberg (1967), which stem from L1 and brain damage studies; children who suffer impairment before
puberty typically recover and (re-)develop normal language, whereas adults rarely recover fully, and often
do not regain verbal abilities beyond the point reached five months after impairment. Both theories agree
that children have a neurological advantage in learning languages, and that puberty correlates with a
turning point in ability. They assert that language acquisition occurs primarily, possibly exclusively,
during childhood as the brain loses plasticity after a certain age. It then becomes rigid and fixed, and loses
the ability for adaptation and reorganisation, rendering language (re-)learning difficult. Penfield and
Roberts (1959) claim children under nine can learn up to three languages: early exposure to different
languages activates a reflex in the brain allowing them to switch between languages without confusion or
translation into L1 (Penfield, 1964). Lenneberg (1967) asserts that if no language is learned by puberty, it
cannot be learned in a normal, functional sense. He also supports Penfield and Roberts’ (1959) proposal
of neurological mechanisms responsible for maturational change in language learning abilities. This,
Lenneberg maintains, coincides with brain lateralisation and left-hemispherical specialisation for
language around age thirteen: infants’ motor and linguistic skills develop simultaneously, but by age
thirteen the cerebral hemispheres’ functions separate and become set, making language acquisition
extremely difficult (Lenneberg, 1967).
Cases of deaf and feral children provide evidence for a biologically determined CP for L1. Feral children
are those not exposed to language in infancy/childhood due to being brought up in the wild, in isolation
and/or confinement. A classic example is 'Genie', who was deprived of social interaction from birth until
discovered aged thirteen (post-pubescent). She was completely without language, and after seven years of
rehabilitation still lacked linguistic competence. Another case is ‘Isabelle’, who was incarcerated with her
deaf-mute mother until the age of six and a half (pre-pubescent). She also had no language skills, but,
unlike Genie, quickly acquired normal language abilities through systematic specialist training.
Such studies are however problematic; isolation can result in general retardation and emotional
disturbances, which may confound conclusions drawn about language abilities. Studies of deaf children
learning American Sign Language (ASL) have fewer methodological weaknesses. Newport and Supalla
(1987) studied ASL acquisition in deaf children differing in age of exposure; few were exposed to ASL
from birth, most of them first learned it at school.
Results showed a linear decline in performance with increasing age of exposure; those exposed to ASL
from birth performed best, and ‘late learners’ worst, on all production and comprehension tests. Their
study thus provides direct evidence for language learning ability decreasing with age, but it does not add
to Lennerberg’s CP hypothesis as even the oldest children, the ‘late learners’, were exposed to ASL by age
four, and had therefore not reached puberty, the proposed end of the CP. In addition, the declines were
shown to be linear, with no sudden ‘drop off’ of ability at a certain age, as would be predicted by a strong
CP hypothesis. That the children performed significantly worse, however, suggests the CP may end earlier
than originally postulated.
Other work has challenged the biological approach; Krashen (1975) reanalysed clinical data used as
evidence and concluded cerebral specialisation occurs much earlier than Lenneberg calculated. Therefore,
if a CP exists, it does not coincide with lateralisation. Despite concerns with Lenneberg’s original
evidence and the dissociation of lateralisation from the language CP idea, however, the concept of a CP
remains a viable hypothesis, which later work has better explained and substantiated.
Contrary to biological views, behavioural approaches assert that languages are learned as any other
behaviour, through conditioning. Skinner (1957) details how operant conditioning forms connections with
the environment through interaction and, alongside O. Hobart Mowrer (1960), applies the ideas to
language acquisition. Mowrer hypothesises that languages are acquired through rewarded imitation of
‘language models’; the model must have an emotional link to the learner (e.g. parent, spouse), as
imitation then brings pleasant feelings which function as positive reinforcement. Because new
connections between behaviour and the environment are formed and reformed throughout life, it is
possible to gain new skills, including language(s), at any age.
To accommodate observed language learning differences between children and adults, Felix (1985)
describes that children, whose brains create countless new connections daily, may handle the language
learning process more effectively than do adults. This assumption, however, remains untested and is not a
reliable explanation for children’s aptitude for L2 learning. Problematic of the behaviourist approach is its
assumption that all learning, verbal and non-verbal, occurs through the same processes. A more general
problem is that, as Pinker (1995) notes, almost every sentence anybody voices is an original combination
of words, never previously uttered, therefore a language cannot consist only of word combinations
learned through repetition and conditioning; the brain must contain innate means of creating endless
amounts of grammatical sentences from a limited vocabulary. This is precisely what Chomsky (1965)
argues with his proposition of a Universal Grammar (UG).
Chomsky (1965) asserts that environmental factors must be relatively unimportant for language
emergence, as so many different factors surround children acquiring L1. Instead, Chomsky claims
language learners possess innate principles building a ‘language acquisition device’ (LAD) in the brain.
These principles denote restricted possibilities for variation within the language, and enable learners to
construct a grammar out of ‘raw input’ collected from the environment. Input alone cannot explain
language acquisition because it is degenerated by characteristic features such as stutters, and lacks
corrections from which learners discover incorrect variations.
Singleton and Newport (2004) demonstrate the function of UG in their study of ‘Simon’. Simon learned
ASL as his L1 from parents who had learned it as an L2 after puberty and provided him with imperfect
models. Results showed Simon learned normal and logical rules and was able to construct an organised
linguistic system, despite being exposed to inconsistent input. Chomsky
Although Krashen (1975) also criticises this theory, neither discredit the importance of age for second
language acquisition. Krashen (1975), and later Felix (1985), proposed theories for the close of the CP for
L2 at puberty, based on Piaget’s cognitive stage of formal operations beginning at puberty, as the ‘ability
of the formal operational thinker to construct abstract hypotheses to explain phenomena’ inhibits the
individual’s natural ability for language learning.
The term "language acquisition" became commonly used after Stephen Krashen contrasted it with formal
and non-constructive "learning." Today, most scholars use "language learning" and "language acquisition"
interchangeably, unless they are directly addressing Krashen's work. However, "second language
acquisition" or "SLA" has become established as the preferred term for this academic discipline.
Though SLA is often viewed as part of applied linguistics, it is typically concerned with the language
system and learning processes themselves, whereas applied linguistics may focus more on the experiences
of the learner, particularly in the classroom. Additionally, SLA has mostly examined naturalistic
acquisition, where learners acquire a language with little formal training or teaching.
Critical Period Hypothesis and

Second Language Acquisition
Many researchers feel that there is a critical period in a human's development in which second
language learning may occur, to the extent that the person will be able to speak the additional
language at the level of a native speaker. It is believed that after the onset of puberty the critical
period has passed and it becomes nearly impossible to learn language to a high degree of
proficiency. Here we will take a look at some of the support both in favor of and against the
Critical Period Hypothesis
Support in favor of the CPH:
Loss of neural plasticity in the brain with age.
Loss of access to the language learning faculty.
Maladaptive gain of processing capacity with maturation.
A "use it then lose it" philosophy and a "use it or lose it" philosophy.
The idea that learning inhibits learning.
Study on native Korean and Chinese speakers found that the earlier (in age) that the non-
nativeEnglish speakers had come to the United States, the better their English proficiency
was. Also, speakers who had arrived prior to puberty had the highest levels of proficiency.
Support against the CPH:
Krashen's Theories of language acquisition provide alternate hypotheses to explain second

language acquisition.
Support against the CPH, continued…
1.Statements supporting CPH misinterpret the facts and, in turn, ignore the findings that
older learners acquire a second language more quickly and efficiently.
2. The idea that neurological differences in children and adults are misattributed to differences in
second language acquisition and proficiency. Although it is understood that these
differences exist, there is not substantial proof that they cause differences in second
3. Undeserved emphasis on unsuccessful adult second language learners, and too little
emphasis on older learners who achieve native level proficiency in a second language.
4. Problems in second language testing.
5. The role of the learning environment.

6. The role of learner motivation
It is my belief, after reviewing data on both sides of the controversy, that a critical period in
second language acquisition is not relevant to proficiency level attainment. I 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. However, due to the relatively recent forays into explaining cognition neurologically, it
is possible that future research could yield more substantial support for the critical period
hypothesis. I also 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 my hope that adult learners who wish to tackle a second language are
not dissuaded by the prospect of a critical period being passed, because there is just not
enough factual evidence to support it at this time.

Many researchers feel that there is a critical period in a human's development in which second
language learning may occur, to the extent that the person will be able to speak the additional
language at the level of a native speaker. It is believed that after the onset of puberty the critical,
it is possible that future research could yield more substantial support for the critical period
hypothesis. I also 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 my hope that adult learners who wish to tackle a second language are
not dissuaded by the prospect of a critical period being passed, because there is just not
enough factual evidence to support it at this time.
Hypothesis
Birdsong, David (Ed.) (1999)

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Is there a single key issue in the field of second language acquisition/learning, an as yet unresolved matter
on which all else depends? A good case could be made for the question of whether or not there is a critical
period for second language learning being just such a key issue. In other words, does the nature of second
language acquisition change if the first exposure to the new language comes after a certain age? This
question is closely linked to the question of whether first language (L1) acquisition and second language
(L2) acquisition are essentially the same process, or very similar processes, and if so whether this is the
case for some learners, or for all. In practical terms, it could be central not only to such issues as the
optimal age at which children should start learning foreign languages, but also to the best
teaching/learning approach for adults. Krashen's Input Hypothesis (Krashen, 1985) is totally undermined
if a critical period does indeed exist, since the hypothesis assumes not only that L2 acquisition is similar
in nature to L1 acquisition, but also that this is the case for learners of any age. Alhough many would
claim that Krashen's theories are seriously flawed in any case, their influence in the field of second
language teaching can hardly be denied. Issues such as the relative importance of lexis and syntax in
teaching materials must ultimately link back to the way in which second language knowledge is organised
in the brain. If that organisation is different in learners who have first been exposed to L2 after a certain
age, then this has a bearing on choice of teaching approach. Yes, I believe there is a strong prima facie
case for regarding the debate over the Critical Period Hypothesis (CPH) as a central issue.
The concept of a critical period is well known in nature. One example is imprinting in ducks and geese,
where it is claimed that ducklings and goslings can be induced to adopt chickens, people, or even
mechanical objects as their mothers if they encounter them within a certain short period after hatching.
(Note, however, that the exact nature of even this apparently well-documented instance of a critical period
is now coming under fire; see Hoffmann, 1996). In humans, on the basis of extant evidence, it seems that
there is a critical period for first language acquisition; those unfortunate persons who are not exposed to
any language before puberty seem unable to properly acquire the syntax of their first language later in
life. (Inevitably, our knowledge in this area is sketchy and unreliable, being based solely on a very few
cases, of which that of "Genie" is the most celebrated and best known; see Eubank and Gregg's article in
Birdsong for a discussion.) [-1-]
Provided that a person learns a first language in the normal way, the question is then whether there is a
certain biologically-determined critical period during which that person can acquire further languages
using one mental mechanism, probably resulting in a high level of achievement if learning continues, and
after which the learning process for new languages changes, so that the learning outcome will not be as
good. Note that we are not talking here about the commonly-observed and widely-accepted generalisation
that learning gets harder as one gets older; nor is the question one of whether changes in attitudes or
situation alter the learning process as one gets older. The issue is whether a fundamental change in the
learning process and thus in potential learning outcomes related to second languages occurs in the brain at
a fairly fixed age, closing a biological "window of opportunity" (although as Birdsong points out in his
introduction to this book, there is no single formulation of the Critical Period Hypothesis, but a number of
different versions of the theory).
This book contributes to the debate by juxtaposing a number of papers which consider the CPH from a
variety of points of view, and which arrive at a variety of conclusions. Most of the papers in the book are
based on talks given at an AILA symposium on the CPH which took place in Finland in 1996. It must
have been quite a conference; the names of the contributors to this book make up a Who's Who of
researchers in fields related to the CPH issue, and the diversity of the opinions held by the contributors
must have made for some sharp exchanges. The book contains research papers by both proponents and
opponents of a CPH for SLA, thus drawing the reader into the controversy.
What you get in the book is what you might expect from the above description. First, it must be said that
it is a fairly tough read. Some of the writers are easier to follow than others, but these are research papers,
and anyone unfamiliar with the fields covered--and there is a considerable range of fields--is likely to
have to work quite hard at some of the texts at least. Second, there is no overall conclusion, even though
the editor does have his own clearly-expressed view. This is not because of differences in the
interpretation of data; it is because the various writers operate in different areas of research, each casting a
different light on the central issue. These varied areas of research produce conclusions which point in
different directions, and because of the lack of common ground on which to debate, the differences cannot
easily be resolved. Third, there is an unevenness about the book. Some writers report on tentative
conclusions from ongoing research; others simply reproduce material on completed projects which can be
found in almost identical form elsewhere. The relevance of the research presented to the central issue also
varies. These points might be regarded as drawbacks. But the compensation comes in having so much
relevant and fairly up-to-date material on the issue collected together in one volume, providing insights
into current knowledge and thinking from a variety of angles.
In his introduction, Birdsong briefly surveys the background to the debate, outlining some of the
arguments previously advanced for and against the existence of a critical period. He is particularly well
suited to this task, having "changed sides" on the issue in the early 1990s. After the background section,
Birdsong goes on to present a careful summary of each of the chapters in the book. While admitting his
adherence to the "anti-CPH" camp, he makes no attempt to resolve the evidence presented in the various
chapters, and concludes that in total the contributions to the book demonstrate "the richness, depth and
breadth of the critical period enquiry" and that they "testify to the unmistakable centrality of the CPH in
L2A research" (p. 18). The introduction is clearly written, and since it contains so much summarising
material it can stand as a valuable survey of the field in itself. However, some of the chapters in the book
do not lend themselves to brief summaries (the chapter by Eubank and Gregg, for example, is far too
broad in scope) and thus reading the introduction is no substitute for reading the entire book. [-2-]
There are three chapters providing evidence for the existence of an SLA critical period. First, Weber-Fox
and Neville take a frontal approach to the issue with an investigation of neural activity while performing
L2 tasks in subjects whose first exposure to L2 was at different ages. Their paper has the rather daunting
title of "Functional Neural Subsystems Are Differentially Affected by Delays in Second Language
Immersion: ERP and Behavioural Evidence in Bilinguals." The findings do not point to the existence of a
single critical period; the patterns of change vary for different language tasks. The authors claim, fairly
circumspectly, that "our findings are consistent with the hypothesis that the development of at least some
neural subsystems for language processing is constrained by maturational changes, even in early
childhood. Additionally, our results are compatible, at least in part, with aspects of Lenneberg's . . .
original hypothesis that puberty may mark a significant point in language learning capacity and neural
reorganization capabilities" (pp. 35-36). Eubank and Gregg, in a wide-ranging paper entitled "Critical
Periods and (Second) Language Acquisition: Divide et Impera," recognise the importance of neurological
investigation in their consideration of whether second language learners retain access to Universal
Grammar, and find Weber-Fox and Neville's line of research a promising one. Sandwiched between these
two chapters comes a paper by Hurford and Kirby which takes a very different approach to the problem.
The writers' argument is an evolutionary one; they produce computer models to suggest that a critical
period for language acquisition finishing at puberty inevitably evolves in order to produce maximum
language learning by the time a reproductive age is reached. However, their argument appears predicated
on the assumption that the level of an individual's language knowledge governs the likelihood of his or
her being able to reproduce. Alas, it has never been my personal experience that linguistic ability provides
a crucial advantage in the competition for sexual partners, and I do not find myself convinced in any great
measure by this application of the currently fashionable evolutionary approach to exploring the nature of
the human mind.
Then come three chapters arguing against the existence of a critical period. James Flege provides research
evidence to show that level of achievement in pronunciation is closely related to age of first exposure to
the second language. He claims that, even for children, the later in life the first exposure to L2, the greater
the degree of foreign accent, with no sudden discontinuity in the figures at a certain age to suggest that a
critical [-3-] period has ended, a window of opportunity suddenly closed. Other hypotheses, he claims,
can be advanced to explain the linear nature of the relationship between age of first exposure and L2
pronunciation, notably that pronunciation of L2 varies as a function of how well one pronounces L1. Theo
Bongaerts takes a very different approach in his paper, which again focusses on pronunciation; his view is
that people who begin learning L2 later in life can sometimes achieve native-like pronunciation. If such
learners do indeed exist, and Bongaerts presents evidence to suggest that they do, then there can be no
biological window of learning opportunity that closes at a fixed age; instead, there must be other
explanations for the lack of success of the majority of learners. These two papers, then, while arriving at
the same conclusion with regard to the existence of an L2 critical period, do so on the basis of more or
less contradictory evidence! Finally, Bialystok and Hakuta, focussing primarily on syntax rather than
pronunciation, again point to the lack of any age-related discontinuity in the nature of L2 acquisition.
They also suggest that belief in a critical period may be the result of misattribution of causality in
examining the evidence; even the neurological differences pointed out by Weber-Fox and Neville could
be the result of differences in the learning experience, rather than causes of such differences.
This is all somewhat confusing, and the only conclusion that a reader can come to at the end of the book
is that there are no easy answers on the CPH. What is clear is that the old notion that the nature of L2
acquisition changes suddenly and dramatically at around the age of 12-13 because of changes in the brain
is much too simplistic (as has been generally recognised for some time). If there is any truth in the CPH,
then there may be different critical periods for different language skills, different types of change at
different ages. If on the other hand there is no physical change in the brain which can be directly related
to language learning, other powerful explanations are needed to account for the dramatic decline in
ultimate achievement generally seen in later second language learners compared to young children -- and
such explanations are no more than tentative guesses at present. None of this is of much immediate help
to the practising language teacher; it may even be in the long run that exact age of first L2 exposure and
the CPH will not turn out to be such a central issue after all, at least not in a formal learning context. But
whether it is itself a key field, or whether it simply takes us into other areas which are key fields, further
research into the relationship between age and language learning is likely to help us delve deeper into the
mysteries of the mechanisms of second language acquisition.
Many researchers feel that there is a critical period in a human's
development in which second language learning may occur, to the
extent that the person will be able to speak the additional
language at the level of a native speaker. It is believed that after
the onset of puberty the critical period has passed and it becomes
nearly impossible to learn language to a high degree of
proficiency. Here we will take a look at some of the support both
in favor of and against the Critical Period Hypothesis.


A "use it then lose it" philosophy and a "use it or lose it"
philosophy.
Study on native Korean and Chinese speakers found that the

earlier (in age) that the non-native English speakers had
come to the United States, the better their English proficiency
was. Also, speakers who had arrived prior to puberty had the
highest levels of proficiency.

Krashen's Theories of language acquisition provide alternate
hypotheses to explain second language acquisition.
Statements supporting CPH misinterpret the facts and, in turn,

ignore the findings that
older learners acquire a second language more quickly and
efficiently.
The idea that neurological differences in children and adults

are misattributed to differences in second language
acquisition and proficiency. Although it is understood that
these differences exist, there is not substantial proof that they
cause differences in second language acquisition.
Undeserved emphasis on unsuccessful adult second language

learners, and too little emphasis on older learners who
achieve native level proficiency in a second language.
Problems in second language testing.
The role of the learning environment.
The role of learner motivation.
It is my belief, after reviewing data on both sides of the

controversy, that a critical period in second language acquisition
is not relevant to proficiency level attainment. I 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.
However, due to the relatively recent forays into explaining
cognition neurologically, it is possible that future research could
yield more substantial support for the critical period hypothesis. I
also 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 my hope that adult learners who wish to tackle a
second language are not dissuaded by the prospect of a critical
period being passed, because there is just not enough factual
evidence to support it at this time.



philosophy.



efficiently.






philosophy.



efficiently.






philosophy.





philosophy.



efficiently.






philosophy.



efficiently.






philosophy.



efficiently.




efficiently.






philosophy.



efficiently.






philosophy.



efficiently.



Second Language Acquisition and the Critical Period describes a

waystage--or rather
Second Language Acquisition and the Critical Period

Hypothesis
Pp x + 191
ISBN 0-8058-3084-7 (cloth)
US $45.00 (special prepaid price, US $19.95)
Is there a single key issue in the field of second language acquisition/learning, an as yet
unresolved matter on which all else depends? A good case could be made for the question of
whether or not there is a critical period for second language learning being just such a key issue.
In other words, does the nature of second language acquisition change if the first exposure to the
new language comes after a certain age? This question is closely linked to the question of
whether first language (L1) acquisition and second language (L2) acquisition are essentially the
same process, or very similar processes, and if so whether this is the case for some learners, or
for all. In practical terms, it could be central not only to such issues as the optimal age at which
children should start learning foreign languages, but also to the best teaching/learning approach
for adults. Krashen's Input Hypothesis (Krashen, 1985) is totally undermined if a critical period
does indeed exist, since the hypothesis assumes not only that L2 acquisition is similar in nature
to L1 acquisition, but also that this is the case for learners of any age. Alhough many would
claim that Krashen's theories are seriously flawed in any case, their influence in the field of
second language teaching can hardly be denied. Issues such as the relative importance of lexis
and syntax in teaching materials must ultimately link back to the way in which second language
knowledge is organised in the brain. If that organisation is different in learners who have first
been exposed to L2 after a certain age, then this has a bearing on choice of teaching approach.
Yes, I believe there is a strong prima facie case for regarding the debate over the Critical Period
Hypothesis (CPH) as a central issue.
The concept of a critical period is well known in nature. One example is imprinting in ducks and
geese, where it is claimed that ducklings and goslings can be induced to adopt chickens, people,
or even mechanical objects as their mothers if they encounter them within a certain short period
after hatching. (Note, however, that the exact nature of even this apparently well-documented
instance of a critical period is now coming under fire; see Hoffmann, 1996). In humans, on the
basis of extant evidence, it seems that there is a critical period for first language acquisition;
those unfortunate persons who are not exposed to any language before puberty seem unable to
properly acquire the syntax of their first language later in life. (Inevitably, our knowledge in this
area is sketchy and unreliable, being based solely on a very few cases, of which that of "Genie"
is the most celebrated and best known; see Eubank and Gregg's article in Birdsong for a
discussion.) [-1-]
Provided that a person learns a first language in the normal way, the question is then whether
there is a certain biologically-determined critical period during which that person can acquire
further languages using one mental mechanism, probably resulting in a high level of achievement
if learning continues, and after which the learning process for new languages changes, so that the
learning outcome will not be as good. Note that we are not talking here about the commonly-
observed and widely-accepted generalisation that learning gets harder as one gets older; nor is
the question one of whether changes in attitudes or situation alter the learning process as one gets
older. The issue is whether a fundamental change in the learning process and thus in potential
learning outcomes related to second languages occurs in the brain at a fairly fixed age, closing a
biological "window of opportunity" (although as Birdsong points out in his introduction to this
book, there is no single formulation of the Critical Period Hypothesis, but a number of different
versions of the theory).
This book contributes to the debate by juxtaposing a number of papers which consider the CPH
from a variety of points of view, and which arrive at a variety of conclusions. Most of the papers
in the book are based on talks given at an AILA symposium on the CPH which took place in
Finland in 1996. It must have been quite a conference; the names of the contributors to this book
make up a Who's Who of researchers in fields related to the CPH issue, and the diversity of the
opinions held by the contributors must have made for some sharp exchanges. The book contains
research papers by both proponents and opponents of a CPH for SLA, thus drawing the reader
into the controversy.
What you get in the book is what you might expect from the above description. First, it must be
said that it is a fairly tough read. Some of the writers are easier to follow than others, but these
are research papers, and anyone unfamiliar with the fields covered--and there is a considerable
range of fields--is likely to have to work quite hard at some of the texts at least. Second, there is
no overall conclusion, even though the editor does have his own clearly-expressed view. This is
not because of differences in the interpretation of data; it is because the various writers operate in
different areas of research, each casting a different light on the central issue. These varied areas
of research produce conclusions which point in different directions, and because of the lack of
common ground on which to debate, the differences cannot easily be resolved. Third, there is an
unevenness about the book. Some writers report on tentative conclusions from ongoing research;
others simply reproduce material on completed projects which can be found in almost identical
form elsewhere. The relevance of the research presented to the central issue also varies. These
points might be regarded as drawbacks. But the compensation comes in having so much relevant
and fairly up-to-date material on the issue collected together in one volume, providing insights
arguments previously advanced for and against the existence of a critical period. He is
particularly well suited to this task, having "changed sides" on the issue in the early 1990s. After
the background section, Birdsong goes on to present a careful summary of each of the chapters in
the book. While admitting his adherence to the "anti-CPH" camp, he makes no attempt to resolve
the evidence presented in the various chapters, and concludes that in total the contributions to the
book demonstrate "the richness, depth and breadth of the critical period enquiry" and that they
"testify to the unmistakable centrality of the CPH in L2A research" (p. 18). The introduction is
clearly written, and since it contains so much summarising material it can stand as a valuable
survey of the field in itself. However, some of the chapters in the book do not lend themselves to
brief summaries (the chapter by Eubank and Gregg, for example, is far too broad in scope) and
thus reading the introduction is no substitute for reading the entire book. [-2-]
There are three chapters providing evidence for the existence of an SLA critical period. First,
Weber-Fox and Neville take a frontal approach to the issue with an investigation of neural
activity while performing L2 tasks in subjects whose first exposure to L2 was at different ages.
Their paper has the rather daunting title of "Functional Neural Subsystems Are Differentially
Affected by Delays in Second Language Immersion: ERP and Behavioural Evidence in
Bilinguals." The findings do not point to the existence of a single critical period; the patterns of
change vary for different language tasks. The authors claim, fairly circumspectly, that "our
findings are consistent with the hypothesis that the development of at least some neural
subsystems for language processing is constrained by maturational changes, even in early
childhood. Additionally, our results are compatible, at least in part, with aspects of Lenneberg's .
. . original hypothesis that puberty may mark a significant point in language learning capacity
and neural reorganization capabilities" (pp. 35-36). Eubank and Gregg, in a wide-ranging paper
entitled "Critical Periods and (Second) Language Acquisition: Divide et Impera," recognise the
importance of neurological investigation in their consideration of whether second language
learners retain access to Universal Grammar, and find Weber-Fox and Neville's line of research a
promising one. Sandwiched between these two chapters comes a paper by Hurford and Kirby
which takes a very different approach to the problem. The writers' argument is an evolutionary
one; they produce computer models to suggest that a critical period for language acquisition
finishing at puberty inevitably evolves in order to produce maximum language learning by the
time a reproductive age is reached. However, their argument appears predicated on the
assumption that the level of an individual's language knowledge governs the likelihood of his or
her being able to reproduce. Alas, it has never been my personal experience that linguistic ability
provides a crucial advantage in the competition for sexual partners, and I do not find myself
convinced in any great measure by this application of the currently fashionable evolutionary
approach to exploring the nature of the human mind.
Then come three chapters arguing against the existence of a critical period. James Flege provides
research evidence to show that level of achievement in pronunciation is closely related to age of
first exposure to the second language. He claims that, even for children, the later in life the first
exposure to L2, the greater the degree of foreign accent, with no sudden discontinuity in the
figures at a certain age to suggest that a critical [-3-] period has ended, a window of opportunity
suddenly closed. Other hypotheses, he claims, can be advanced to explain the linear nature of the
relationship between age of first exposure and L2 pronunciation, notably that pronunciation of
L2 varies as a function of how well one pronounces L1. Theo Bongaerts takes a very different
approach in his paper, which again focusses on pronunciation; his view is that people who begin
learning L2 later in life can sometimes achieve native-like pronunciation. If such learners do
indeed exist, and Bongaerts presents evidence to suggest that they do, then there can be no
explanations for the lack of success of the majority of learners. These two papers, then, while
arriving at the same conclusion with regard to the existence of an L2 critical period, do so on the
basis of more or less contradictory evidence! Finally, Bialystok and Hakuta, focussing primarily
on syntax rather than pronunciation, again point to the lack of any age-related discontinuity in
the nature of L2 acquisition. They also suggest that belief in a critical period may be the result of
misattribution of causality in examining the evidence; even the neurological differences pointed
out by Weber-Fox and Neville could be the result of differences in the learning experience, rather
than causes of such differences.
This is all somewhat confusing, and the only conclusion that a reader can come to at the end of
the book is that there are no easy answers on the CPH. What is clear is that the old notion that the
nature of L2 acquisition changes suddenly and dramatically at around the age of 12-13 because
of changes in the brain is much too simplistic (as has been generally recognised for some time).
If there is any truth in the CPH, then there may be different critical periods for different language
skills, different types of change at different ages. If on the other hand there is no physical change
in the brain which can be directly related to language learning, other powerful explanations are
needed to account for the dramatic decline in ultimate achievement generally seen in later second
language learners compared to young children -- and such explanations are no more than
tentative guesses at present. None of this is of much immediate help to the practising language
teacher; it may even be in the long run that exact age of first L2 exposure and the CPH will not
turn out to be such a central issue after all, at least not in a formal learning context. But whether
it is itself a key field, or whether it simply takes us into other areas which are key fields, further
research into the relationship between age and language learning is likely to help us delve deeper
into the mysteries of the mechanisms of second language acquisition.
Birdsong's collection of papers describes a waystage--or rather

Hypothesis
Pp x + 191
ISBN 0-8058-3084-7 (cloth)
discussion.) [-1-]

Hypothesis
Pp x + 191
ISBN 0-8058-3084-7 (cloth)
discussion.) [-1-]

Hypothesis
Pp x + 191
ISBN 0-8058-3084-7 (cloth)
discussion.) [-1-]

Hypothesis
Pp x + 191
ISBN 0-8058-3084-7 (cloth)
discussion.) [-1-]

Hypothesis
Pp x + 191
ISBN 0-8058-3084-7 (cloth)
discussion.) [-1-]
This article is about a critical period in an organism's development. See also America's Critical
Period.
In general, a critical period is a limited time in which an event can occur, usually to result in
some kind of transformation. A "critical period" in developmental psychology and developmental
biology is a time in the early stages of an organism's life during which it displays a heightened
sensitivity to certain environmental stimuli, and develops in particular ways due to experiences at
this time. If the organism does not receive the appropriate stimulus during this "critical period", it
may be difficult, ultimately less successful, or even impossible, to develop some functions later
in life.[1]
For example, the critical period for the development of a human child's binocular vision is
thought to be between one and three years,[1] and further critical periods have been identified for
the development of hearing and the vestibular system.[2] There are critical periods in childhood in
which imprinting can occur, such as when a greylag goose becomes attached to a parent figure
within the first 36 hours after hatching. A young chaffinch must hear an adult singing before it
sexually matures, or it will never properly learn the highly intricate song.[3] These observations
have led some to hypothesise a critical period for certain areas of human learning, particularly
Experimental research into critical periods has involved depriving animals of stimuli at different
stages of development. Other studies have looked at children deprived of certain experiences due
to illness (such as temporary blindness), or social isolation (such as feral children). Many of the
studies investigating a critical period for language acquisition have focused on deaf children of
hearing parents.
Contents
[hide]
• 1 Linguistics
o 1.1 First language acquisition
o 1.2 Second language acquisition
• 2 See also
• 3 External links
• 4 References
The critical period hypothesis (CPH) refers to 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 to acquire language in
a linguistically rich environment, after which this is no longer possible due to changes in the
brain. The hypothesis has been discussed in the context of both first (FLA) and second language
acquisition (SLA), and is particularly controversial in the latter. In FLA, it seeks to explain the
apparent absence of language in individuals whose childhood exposure was very limited, and in
SLA it is often invoked to explain variation in adults' performance in learning a second language,
which is very often observed to fall short of nativelike attainment. Various ages have been
proposed for the supposed end of the CPH; those that point to pre-adolescent ages such as 12
have been vulnerable to alternative theories which invoke psychological or social factors
applying as children move into adolescence.
Contents
[hide]
• 1 History
• 2 First language acquisition
o 2.1 Children without language
• 3 Footnotes
• 4 See also
History
The critical period hypothesis is associated with Wilder Penfield, whose 1956 Vanuxem lectures
at Princeton University formed the basis of his 1959 work with Lamar Roberts, Speech and
Brain Mechanisms. Penfield and Roberts explored the neuroscience of language, concluding that
it was dominant in the left hemisphere of the brain on the basis of hundreds of case studies
spanning many decades. The review focussed on how individuals with brain damage evidenced
atypical linguistic performance, rather than examining neurotypical cases of 'normal' language
acquisition, and the authors' conclusions were also based on the prevailing tabula rasa view that
children were born without any real innate language ability; however, linguistic "units", once
"fixed", would affect later learning.[1] Their recommendations for language schooling
recommended starting early in order to avoid fixed effects; though these claims did not form the
core of the book, being confined to the last chapter, other researchers and popular opinion were
much-influenced by them. The hypothesis was developed by Eric Lenneberg in his 1967
Biological Foundations of Language, which set the end of the critical period for native language
acquisition at 12. The hypothesis has been fiercely debated since then, and has continued to
inform popular assumptions about the presumed (in)ability of adults to fluently learn a second
language.
In SLA, a weaker version of the CPH emerged in the 1970s. This refers to a sensitive period in
which nativelike performance is unlikely but not ruled out.[2] The strongest evidence for the CPH
is in the study of accent, where most older learners seem not to reach a native-like level. This
leads some researchers to apply the CPH only to second language phonology rather than all
aspects of language; indeed, a CPH was not seriously considered for syntax until the 1990s, in
research that remains a minority view.[3] However, under certain conditions, native-like accent
has been observed, suggesting that accent in SLA is affected by multiple factors, such as identity
and motivation, rather than a biological constraint.[4]
First language acquisition

For more information, see: First language acquisition
Children without language
The CPH as applied to first language acquisition proposes that a child deprived of exposure to
natural language would fail to acquire it if exposure commenced only after the end of the critical
period. Because testing such a theory would be unethical, in that it would involve isolating a
child from the rest of the world for several years, researchers have gathered evidence of the CPH
from a few victims of child abuse. The most famous example is the case of Genie (a
pseudonym), who was deprived of language until the age of 13. Over the following years of
rehabilitation, improvement in her ability to communicate was noted, but during this time she did
not develop the language ability common to other children.[5] However, this case has been
criticised as a firm example of the critical period in action, and data has not been gathered from
Genie since the 1970s.[6]
Although there are several cases on record of deaf children being deprived of sign language, this
could also count as abuse. One case in which no abuse took place is that of Chelsea, whose
deafness was left undiagnosed until the age of 31. Once hearing aids had apparently restored her
hearing to near-normal levels, she seemed to develop a large vocabulary while her phonology
and syntax remained at a very low level.[7] The implications of this have been disputed, given the
apparently unlikely circumstances of Chelsea's diagnosis.[8]
Footnotes
1. ↑ Penfield & Roberts (1959: 252; Dechert 1995: 67-94).
2. ↑ Oyama (1976).
3. ↑ Scovel (1969) links the CPH mainly to 'foreign accent'; DeKeyser (2003) argues for a critical
period in syntax, but only for 'implicit' (subsconscious) learning.
4. ↑ Moyer (1999); Bongaerts et al. (1995); Young-Scholten (2002).
5. ↑ Curtiss (1977).
6. ↑ Jones (1995).
7. ↑ Pinker (1994).
8. ↑ Bialystok & Hakuta (1994).
1
Klaus Tichacek
Mat. Nr.:
Applied NLP
Universität Osnabrück
Wintersemester 2002 / 2003
The “Critical Period Hypothesis” and Pidgin and Creole
languages
0.Introduction
In this paper I outline the course and content of our referat on the critical
period hypothesis.
Then I am going to relate the critical period hypothesis to the existence of
pidgin and Creole
languages. I think that pidgin and creoles provide direct evidence for the
critical period
hypothesis and that they can be explained on the basis of the critical period
hypothesis.
The critical period hypothesis seems to be the reason for the striking
differences of pidgins
and creoles. The fact that creoles are developed by children who are
obviously still in their
critical period is a clear evidence for the hypothesis.
But let’s start by presenting the critical period hypothesis.
1.The critical period hypothesis
The critical period hypothesis states that there exists a certain time window
during which
language learning must occur. The idea of a critical period is fairly old and
well known. For
example there is a critical period in learning to really master some music
instrument,
especially the violin and the piano. If one starts too late the complex and fast
movements of
the fingers will not be learned as good as by early starters. Already at the
time of Mozart
music education started in early childhood because this critical period was
known.
Another commonly known fact is that the general cognitive abilities decay
with age. Old
people find many memory tasks more difficult than young people. This is
also reflected in
current IQ-Test where the peak of the scale is approximately between 20 and
35. In this time
period you have to score higher than all other age groups to get the same IQ-
value.
The common knowledge of effects like these makes the assumption the there
is also a critical
period for language acquisition obvious.
Since ages there has been an enormous interest in this question. It is said
that already the
ancient Egyptian king Psammetichus conducted the ultimate language-
learning experiment.
He placed two infants in an isolated cabin and allowed nobody to speak to
them. Two years
later the children spoke Phyrigian, so the story goes. Plausibility of this tale
may be doubted
but it clearly shows the general interest in the question about a critical
period for languageacquisition.
There are also numerous reports of people who grow up under inhumane
conditions and did not develop language, a famous German example is
“Kaspar Hauser” who
clearly astonished the scientist at his time.
2
This enormous interest in the question about a critical period for language-
acquisition has lead
to an extensive research in this area of linguistics and it is still a hotly
debated question in the
area of cognitive sciences.
While the general notion that there exist this critical period for language-
acquisition is now an
accepted fact it is still unclear what exactly causes it. That there are some
internal changes in
us seems to be obvious but exactly what happens remains unknown. It is
mostly assumed that
there are some maturational constrains on the development of the brain that
cause the critical
period. Future research and fMRI studies might further justify this
assumption.
In our referat we gave a rather classical report on the critical period
hypothesis and the found
evidence for it.
As indirect evidence we presented the classical studies by E. Lenneberg
(1967) on aphasia.
Lenneberg provided a first argument for the existence of a critical period in
language
acquisition.
As a second evidence and critical test for the hypothesis we presented some
rare cases of
deprived children who were “real” late learners. One of the most famous
cases of this kind is
Genie, a “modern day wild child” which we discussed in more detail.
As a third and final evidence we presented controlled studies on ASL signers
and second
language learners by E. Newport.
These evidences are now shortly recaptured
1.1 Age and recovery from traumatic aphasia
In his book “´Biological foundations of language” E. Lenneberg (1969)
introduces the notion
of a critical period for language acquisition in humans. The book summarizes
and investigates
several findings from clinical investigations on brain injuries and recovery
patterns.
Another aspect Lenneberg considers is the age of lateralization of speech
function and the
confinement of certain brain functions from one hemisphere to the other
after
hemispherecomy (the complete removal of an entire hemisphere).
A very general and important discovery of Lenneberg is that the recovery
patterns from
aphasia are very different in adults and in children. On the one hand adults
have a time
window of three to five months during which they may recover from aphasia
but after this
period all remaining symptoms are irreversible. And adult show no sign of
relearning their
language.
On the other hand children between the ages of four to ten recover fully from
aphasia and
show no time window during which recovery must take place. Infants even
start to relearn
their language totally from the beginning. But with increasing age the
recovery pattern of
children quickly becomes the same as for adults. After the middle teens
children may also
have irreversible symptoms.
But recovery patterns from aphasia are not the only evidence Lenneberg
presents. Based on
data by Basser (1962) Lenneberg makes the claim that both hemispheres of
the human brain
are epipotential during a period in infancy. At the beginning of language
development both
hemispheres are involved in language learning. Only after a certain while this
involvement
decreases and the left hemisphere becomes the major bearer of language
functions. But during
this epipotential period the right hemisphere is also able to take on speech
and language
functions as the data of children of various ages with lesions or
hemispherecotmy of one
hemisphere shows.
3
The raw data Lenneberg used to draw his conclusions was rather incomplete
and several
terms were used inconsistently and different by his various sources. But the
book remains
nevertheless convincing. But it may only contribute indirect evidence for the
critical period
hypothesis. The main thing which the studies presented in this book can
show is that there is a
critical period for the contralateral hemisphere to take over the functions of
the damaged
hemisphere.
1.2 “Wild children” – evidence from rare cases
The best evidence for the existence of a critical period would be of course an
experiment like
the Egyptian king Psammetichus conducted. But luckily this is not possible
due to moral
conventions of the society. Unfortunately there are sometimes cases where
children were
deprived from linguistic input for various reasons. Theses cases are then
particulary
interesting for linguistic research. We presented three cases of such cases,
Isabelle, Genie and
Chelsea.
Isabelle was raised by a speechless mother and had not learned any
language when she was
found at the age of six. Within only one year Isabelle learned to speak at the
level of her 7
year old peers. As Isabelle was still within the time window of the critical
period her quick
language acquisition is exactly what was expected by the hypothesis.
The second child, Genie, was found at the age of 13. Genie was kept by her
parents in the
attic and beaten constantly. She grew up totally isolated in her room and was
never spoken to.
When she was found there were great attempts to teach her language. Genie
made great
process but never managed to acquire normal language abilities. Her
development suggest
that there are some aspects of language which can be learned after the
critical period but also
some which must be learned during the critical period. One of the things
Genie mastered was
the basic word order. This seems to be a feature which still can be learned
after the critical
period. But Genie performed only very poorly on proforms, movement rules,
passive
constructions, noun verb agreements, auxiliary structures and reflexives. She
also never used
functional category words.
The study of Genies development is also particular interesting as one can
compare her use of
language with the grammatical structure of so called pidgin languages. The
most astonishing
finding is that pidgin languages typically lack the same structures as Genie
does. I will discuss
this topic later in more detail.
Besides from the fact that Genie did not develop normal language abilities
she was also
abnormally slow at language learning. This might suggest that she could be
retarded or have
some serious damages from her childhood. But this was not the case, on the
contrary in tests
which rely entirely on the right hemisphere Genie scored higher than
normally intelligent
persons. This suggest that Genie most of the time uses her fight hemisphere
to solve cognitive
task and also for language processing. S. Curtiss who did most of the studies
with Genie
concluded that “ the cortical tissue normally committed to language and
related abilities my
functionally atrophy” if language is not acquired at the appropriate time.
This idea is also in accordance with the findings of Lenneberg. He had
records of patients
who confined language to the right hemisphere after hemispherectomy. Their
performance
was comparable to Genie’s. This strongly suggests that Genie’s left
hemisphere lost its
functional abilities as it was never triggered to perform these functions
during the critical
period.
But this also changes the view on the critical period. Now we should see the
critical period
not as a period for language acquisition but as a period for functional
development of the left
hemisphere. The left hemisphere seems to be more specialized for language
learning and
4
some other tasks while the right hemisphere seems to be more flexible in
taking on various
tasks but performs them not as good as the left hemisphere.
The third and last case we discussed was a woman, Chelsea, at the age of
31. Chelsea was
deaf but mistakenly diagnosed by doctors as retarded. When her deafness
was recognized at
the age of 31 she had not learned any language. She acquired a sizeable
vocabulary and
produced multiword utterances but her sentences do not even have the
rudimentary
grammatical structure of Genie’ s. As Chelsea was already way beyond the
critical period this
was exactly what the hypothesis would predict.
These three cases of late language learners give strong evidence for the
existence of a critical
period hypothesis and also provide some insight in the internal mechanisms
of language
acquisition.
1.3 Controlled studies
In the last part of our referat we presented some controlled studies on
language acquisition
conducted by E. Newport.
The first series of studies was performed on deaf children who provide a
unique opportunity
to study the differences in language acquisition at different ages. Only a
small part of all deaf
children are born to deaf parents and exposed to ASL, a natural language,
from birth. There is
a wide variation for the age of ASL acquisition in the deaf community. These
experiments can
therefore provide direct evidence for the critical period as they are done
under controlled
conditions with a rather homogenous group of subjects.
Newport formed three major groups of subjects in her experiments. She
distinguished native
learners who were exposed to ASL from birth, early learners (first exposure
around age 4 – 6)
and late learners (first exposure after the age of 12).
The data of the experiments shows that the late learners performed
significantly worse than
the early learners. Moreover it was shown again that some properties of
language like basic
word order are not affected by the age of the first exposure while others are.
This is exactly what was also found in Genie’ s language abilities. The late
learners did not
master the same structures as Genie. Later I will discuss this topic further as
this can also be
observed in the creation of Pidgin languages.
Some tasks on morphology give strong evidence for a steeply declining
performance of the
late language learners. Also the typical types of errors performed by the
groups of learners
were very different. The late learners showed a highly variable use of ASL
including
inconsistencies in individual responses. Again this is some feature which also
is present in the
Pidgin languages.
Newport’ s second experiment focused on second language learning. The
phenomenon of a
declining performance with increasing age was also found in second
language learning. The
subjects were native Chinese or Korean speakers who learned English as a
second language.
Again groups in dependence of the age were formed as age is the interesting
variable here.
The results show that in general subjects who started learning English earlier
performed better
than those who started later.
But this does not mean that older people generally can’ t learn a second
language. There were
also some good late learners among the subjects but their performance is
possible due to their
general great cognitive performance. The group of early learners performed
more
homogenously and they also showed a strong correlation between age of
acquisition start and
performance.
An inspection of the performed error patterns in the older subjects showed
again the same
findings as the ASL study and the research on Genie. The older learner’ s
mastered word order
5
and the use of the morpheme -ing but virtually all other aspects of English
morphology and
syntax showed a rather inconsistent and highly variable use. Also a striking
feature of the
language of the late learners was that they used “ frozen” structures which
they seemed to have
learned as whole and did not analyze their internal structure.
The young learners on the other hand showed mainly componential errors
and selective
omission of some morphemes.
This interesting phenomenon lead Newport to the “ Less is more hypothesis”
. This hypothesis
assumes that the reason for the differences between adult and child
language learners is the
way in which children perceive and store the linguistic input.
The general idea behind this hypothesis is that componential analysis is
required in language
learning and that children are better in this because cognitive abilities of
adult are too good.
Children seem to be a privileged language learner as they are the less
informed learner. Their
smaller “width” of short term memory might be the reason why the task of
mapping meaning
to single morphemes is easier for children as they perceive only smaller
parts of the complex
input.
Adult learners are able to store larger chunks of the complex input and
therefore have to do
the mapping on the whole complex expression which is a computationally
very demanding
task.
The presented experiments strongly imply that language learning depends
upon the age of the
learner. There seems to be a biologically defined critical period hypothesis.
I will now consider the creation pidgin and Creole languages which seem to
provide another
direct evidence for the critical period hypothesis.
2.0 Comparison of the CPH and Pidgin and Creole languages
In the following I’m going to relate our referat and the critical period
hypothesis to the first
referat on pidgins and creoles.
The referat on pidgin and Creole languages introduced the general idea of
pidgins and creoles,
outlined their specific features, presented a paper by D. Bickerton and
showed a study done in
this area as well as the “ Language Bioprogram Hypothesis” by Mufwene.
The study was again performed by E. Newport. Together with C. Hudson the
phenomenon of
regularization in Creole languages was examined. The main question behind
this study was to
find out whether adults are responsible for this process and able to learn
rules. To investigate
this issue adult subjects were exposed to an pidgin like language and later
tested on their
comprehension and production ability of this language. The actual finding of
this study was
that that adults are able to learn rules when they are exposed to variable
input but they do not
generate rules. The only rules adults would develop are rules which would
further reduce the
complexity of the language.
The “ Language Bioprogram Hypothesis” by Mufene was only outlined shortly
as the time
during the talk was already over. The group mainly presented criticism
against this
hypothesis.
In the following I will concentrate on the general features of pidgin languages
outlined by the
group. These general features allow a very good explanation for the
existence of pidgin and
Creole languages on the basis of the critical period hypothesis and with such
an explanation
the pidgin and Creole languages can be seen as further evidence for the
critical period
hypothesis.
6
2.1 Pidgin languages
A pidgin language is a language which is based on another language or to be
precise on
several other languages. A pidgin language develops among people and
becomes a means of
communication among people who speak different native languages. But in
contrast to normal
natural languages a pidgin language shows only a very poor grammar and a
sharply curtailed
vocabulary.
The mayor ingredients of a pidgin language come from the native languages
of the pidgin
speakers. The language with the strongest influence on the pidgin is called
the superstrate
language and all other contributing languages are called the substrate
languages.
The vocabulary is mainly drawn from the superstrate language whereas the
grammar is a
compound product of all involved languages.
Slavery and colonization were a major force for the formation of pidgin
languages. For
example the slaves brought to America did not necessarily speak the same
language but had to
communicate with each other. To accomplish this they invented a pidgin
language with
English as superstrate language.
What is typical for pidgin languages is that their use is highly variable and
due to the small
vocabulary many concepts are expressed in whole sentences.
By its definition a pidgin language is native to none of its speakers.
2.2 Creole languages
When a pidgin is used in a community and the next generation learns this
pidgin as a native
language a process called creolization begins. This is done by the children
who receive the
pidgin language as their only input and basis for language acquisition. Here a
remarkable
thing happens, the children do not learn this easy and poor language but
they tremendously
extend it and transform it into a real natural language with full complexity
and a uniform use
among its speakers. This newly developed language has a complex grammar
and an extended
vocabulary. When this Creole adopts more and more features of the
superstrate language it
becomes a variety of the standard of this superstrate language, this process
is called
decreolization. If the Creole language develops to completely new language
this process is
called hypercreolization.
Linguists have noted similarities in grammatical structure among all Creole
languages around
the world. This is remarkable as most of these languages developed totally
independent of
each other with little or no contact at all.
This feature of Creole languages suggests that there are biological reasons
for this similarity
among these languages. Maybe the same biological reasons which account
for the critical
period hypothesis? I will discuss this idea in the later part of this paper.
3.0 The critical period hypothesis and Pidgin and Creole languages
The form and structure of pidgin languages are very simple. Upon further
analysis one can
discover that their grammar und usage resembles very much the language
used by Genie or
Chelsea and that the errors performed by late language learners also seem
to be a present
feature of pidgin languages.
Pidgin languages are generally learned by adults therefore. It is no big
surprise that the adults
who “ invent” the pidgin invent it by incorporating the errors that late first
and second
language learners usually make. Also a striking feature of the pidgin
languages is that they
7
show a highly variable use of grammar, exactly what has been found in the
error patterns of
late learners in the studies by Newport (1990) presented by us.
This suggests that the poor grammatical structure of Pidgin languages is
mainly due to the fact
that the “ learners” of the pidgin are adults who are beyond their critical
period for language
acquisition. In this sense a pidgin has a very high similarity to a learned
second language
spoken by some poorly performing adult. If you encounter a German in
France who learned
French very poorly and late in life the structure of his sentences should
resemble a Pidgin
with French as superstrate and German as substrate language, as much
French vocabulary as
possible but used with a rather German grammar. At least this is what I
would assume.
But when children learn the pidgin language as their native language they
start to change it.
On the basis of the critical period hypothesis this occurs because the children
are still able to
fully grasp the complexity of a natural language. The start the process of
creolization and
learn a complex Creole language with an uniform grammar across its
speakers.
This is also what was found out by Newport (1990), early learners showed a
highly consistent
use of their grammar and rather made componential and omission errors.
This similarity
suggests that children are solely responsible for this regularization process of
the pidgin
grammar. This idea is also further supported by the findings of Newport and
Hudson
mentioned above.
But the “Less is more Hypothesis” , an explanation for the CPH also
presented by Newport,
does not account for the fact that the children extend the grammar of the
pidgin language so
much. It seems that there is more about the critical period hypothesis than
just a plain
computational advantage for the uninformed learner about the critical period
hypothesis.
Somehow it seems that the internal constraints on language acquisition have
a certain
preference for a grammar with the complexity of natural language
grammars. This might be
due to some internal “ bio program” as proposed by Mufwene but I prefer the
classic idea of a
universal grammar proposed by Chomsky. I cannot explain how children
come to invent such
complex grammatical features on their own without having any input as
basis. But
nevertheless the finding that all Creole languages around the world have
similarities in their
grammatical structure strongly suggests that an internal mechanism,
program or constraint is
present which drives our language development. And this internal structure
is only active
during the critical period as Creole languages are only developed by them.
Adults can only
produce the simple Pidgins.
And this has nothing to do with learning a first or a second language. Chelsea
and Genie
learned English as their first language and nevertheless showed the
structural deficits also
found for Pidgin languages.
Also the experiments on second language learners conducted by Newport
(1990) show that
they late learners performed the same error patterns although they had
different native
languages. The experiment was actually only done on subjects with either
Chinese or Korean
as native language but as the same error patterns were also found for late
ASL learners I think
that the generalization to all second language learners with different native
languages can be
made.
This contradicts the so called “ Fundamental difference hypothesis” which
suggests that
second language learning is based on the native language. To some extend
this might be true,
especially if the first and the second language are very similar. But the
finding that people
form different language backgrounds perform the same errors in second
language learning
strongly suggests that these errors are due to something internal to all
humans that does not
correlate strongly with the native language of the speaker. Chelsea and
Genie are also
evidence for this as they performed the same errors and showed the same
deficits without
having a native language before their acquisition of English.
8
I think that these findings pretty much explain the structure of Pidgin
languages.
Also the process of creolization is well explained by this, the children are
simply still in their
critical period and therefore able to capture the complex structures. As
Isabelle showed this
can happen very quickly without any effort on the side of the children what
suggest that this is
a natural process.
4.0 Conclusion
As I have outlined above the critical period hypothesis is at least partially
able to explain the
existence and structure of Pidgin and Creole languages. These two
phenomenons, the
invention of Pidgins and their evolution to Creoles, are exactly what one
would expect if the
critical period hypothesis is correct.
Therefore these two topics of language acquisition are very strongly related
and should
always be considered together if features them are examined. It cannot be
by pure accident
that adults are worse at language learning and that Pidgins are produced or “
invented” by
adults. And it is also not an accident that children who learn a language that
easily start the
process of creolization.
I think that the connection of these two topics is obvious and should be
examined in the
future. A hypothesis for language acquisition which includes these two
approaches is likely to
be more biologically plausible than the presented “ Less is more hypothesis”
or any other of
the mentioned hypothesises.
I therefore conclude that the critical period seems to be a feature of humans
which ultimately
leads to Pidgin creation and Creole creation. By this mechanism nature
manages to produce
an elaborate language system with complex grammatical features which
might need to evolve
over some generations but is finally a much regularized system with clear
cut rules. I think
that this can be followed from the evidence for the critical period hypothesis
and from the
facts about Pidgin and Creole languages. 1
Klaus Tichacek
Mat. Nr.:
Applied NLP
languages
0.Introduction
period hypothesis.
pidgin and Creole
critical period
hypothesis.
during which
well known. For
instrument,
movements of
time of Mozart
known.
with age. Old
also reflected in
35. In this time
value.
is also a critical
that already the
them. Two years
may be doubted
2
internal changes in
mostly assumed that
cause the critical
assumption.
evidence for it.
(1967) on aphasia.
language
acquisition.
rare cases of
and second
and investigates
patterns.
function and the
after
patterns from
have a time
but after this
relearning their
language.
aphasia and
start to relearn
recovery pattern of
children may also
presents. Based on
the human brain
development both
involvement
and language
hemisphere shows.
3
and several
book remains
critical period
the damaged
hemisphere.
experiment like
due to moral
children were
particulary
Isabelle, Genie and
Chelsea.
level of her 7
period her quick
parents in the
never spoken to.
made great
development suggest
Genie mastered was
after the critical
passive
also never used
compare her use of
most astonishing
she was also
retarded or have
contrary in tests
to solve cognitive
with Genie
records of patients
performance
hemisphere lost its
during the critical
period.
critical period
learning and
4
taking on various
31. Chelsea was
was recognized at
vocabulary and
rudimentary
of language
acquisition.
unique opportunity
experiments can
under controlled
around age 4 – 6)
language like basic
learners did not
this can also be
performance of the
groups of learners
including
is present in the
Pidgin languages.
phenomenon of a
second language.
variable here.
performed better
more
performance.
again the same
mastered word order
5
morphology and
feature of the
they seemed to have
and selective
. This hypothesis
adult are too good.
mapping meaning
input.
very demanding
task.
upon the age of the
provide another
phenomenon of
this study was to
tested on their
this study was
further reduce the
as the time
against this
hypothesis.
outlined by the
an explanation
critical period
hypothesis.
6
precise on
becomes a means of
contrast to normal
sharply curtailed
vocabulary.
of the pidgin
the superstrate
languages.
grammar is a
languages. For
language but had to
language with
due to the small
pidgin as a native
who receive the
remarkable
they tremendously
and a uniform use
and an extended
is called
this process is
languages around
independent of
for this similarity
for the critical
analysis one can
used by Genie or
to be a present
and second
7
error patterns of
period for language
second language
France who learned
resemble a Pidgin
would assume.
start to change it.
are still able to
creolization and
speakers.
highly consistent
This similarity
the pidgin
Hudson
mentioned above.
pidgin language so
just a plain
hypothesis.
a certain
classic idea of a
come to invent such
basis. But
is only active
Adults can only
and Genie
(1990) show that
different native
Chinese or Korean
languages can be
made.
suggests that
this might be true,
finding that people
language learning
Genie are also
deficits without
8
languages.
a natural process.
4.0 Conclusion
able to explain the
phenomenons, the
would expect if the
and should
by pure accident
invented” by
easily start the
examined in the
or any other of
which ultimately
manages to produce
cut rules. I think
and from the
Klaus Tichacek
Mat. Nr.:
Applied NLP
languages
0.Introduction
period hypothesis.
pidgin and Creole
critical period
hypothesis.
during which
well known. For
instrument,
movements of
time of Mozart
known.
with age. Old
also reflected in
35. In this time
value.
is also a critical
that already the
them. Two years
may be doubted
2
internal changes in
mostly assumed that
cause the critical
assumption.
evidence for it.
(1967) on aphasia.
language
acquisition.
rare cases of
and second
and investigates
patterns.
function and the
after
patterns from
have a time
but after this
relearning their
language.
aphasia and
start to relearn
recovery pattern of
children may also
presents. Based on
the human brain
development both
involvement
and language
hemisphere shows.
3
and several
book remains
critical period
the damaged
hemisphere.
experiment like
due to moral
children were
particulary
Isabelle, Genie and
Chelsea.
level of her 7
period her quick
parents in the
never spoken to.
made great
development suggest
Genie mastered was
after the critical
passive
also never used
compare her use of
most astonishing
she was also
retarded or have
contrary in tests
to solve cognitive
with Genie
records of patients
performance
hemisphere lost its
during the critical
period.
critical period
learning and
4
taking on various
31. Chelsea was
was recognized at
vocabulary and
rudimentary
of language
acquisition.
unique opportunity
experiments can
under controlled
around age 4 – 6)
language like basic
learners did not
this can also be
performance of the
groups of learners
including
is present in the
Pidgin languages.
phenomenon of a
second language.
variable here.
performed better
more
performance.
again the same
mastered word order
5
morphology and
feature of the
they seemed to have
and selective
. This hypothesis
adult are too good.
mapping meaning
input.
very demanding
task.
upon the age of the
provide another
phenomenon of
this study was to
tested on their
this study was
further reduce the
as the time
against this
hypothesis.
outlined by the
an explanation
critical period
hypothesis.
6
precise on
becomes a means of
contrast to normal
sharply curtailed
vocabulary.
of the pidgin
the superstrate
languages.
grammar is a
languages. For
language but had to
language with
due to the small
pidgin as a native
who receive the
remarkable
they tremendously
and a uniform use
and an extended
is called
this process is
languages around
independent of
for this similarity
for the critical
analysis one can
used by Genie or
to be a present
and second
7
error patterns of
period for language
second language
France who learned
resemble a Pidgin
would assume.
start to change it.
are still able to
creolization and
speakers.
highly consistent
This similarity
the pidgin
Hudson
mentioned above.
pidgin language so
just a plain
hypothesis.
a certain
classic idea of a
come to invent such
basis. But
is only active
Adults can only
and Genie
(1990) show that
different native
Chinese or Korean
languages can be
made.
suggests that
this might be true,
finding that people
language learning
Genie are also
deficits without
8
languages.
a natural process.
4.0 Conclusion
able to explain the
phenomenons, the
would expect if the
and should
by pure accident
invented” by
easily start the
examined in the
or any other of
which ultimately
manages to produce
cut rules. I think
and from the
Klaus Tichacek
Mat. Nr.:
Applied NLP
languages
0.Introduction
period hypothesis.
pidgin and Creole
critical period
hypothesis.
during which
well known. For
instrument,
movements of
time of Mozart
known.
with age. Old
also reflected in
35. In this time
value.
is also a critical
that already the
them. Two years
may be doubted
2
internal changes in
mostly assumed that
cause the critical
assumption.
evidence for it.
(1967) on aphasia.
language
acquisition.
rare cases of
and second
and investigates
patterns.
function and the
after
patterns from
have a time
but after this
relearning their
language.
aphasia and
start to relearn
recovery pattern of
children may also
presents. Based on
the human brain
development both
involvement
and language
hemisphere shows.
3
and several
book remains
critical period
the damaged
hemisphere.
experiment like
due to moral
children were
particulary
Isabelle, Genie and
Chelsea.
level of her 7
period her quick
parents in the
never spoken to.
made great
development suggest
Genie mastered was
after the critical
passive
also never used
compare her use of
most astonishing
she was also
retarded or have
contrary in tests
to solve cognitive
with Genie
records of patients
performance
hemisphere lost its
during the critical
period.
critical period
learning and
4
taking on various
31. Chelsea was
was recognized at
vocabulary and
rudimentary
of language
acquisition.
unique opportunity
experiments can
under controlled
around age 4 – 6)
language like basic
learners did not
this can also be
performance of the
groups of learners
including
is present in the
Pidgin languages.
phenomenon of a
second language.
variable here.
performed better
more
performance.
again the same
mastered word order
5
morphology and
feature of the
they seemed to have
and selective
. This hypothesis
adult are too good.
mapping meaning
input.
very demanding
task.
upon the age of the
provide another
phenomenon of
this study was to
tested on their
this study was
further reduce the
as the time
against this
hypothesis.
outlined by the
an explanation
critical period
hypothesis.
6
precise on
becomes a means of
contrast to normal
sharply curtailed
vocabulary.
of the pidgin
the superstrate
languages.
grammar is a
languages. For
language but had to
language with
due to the small
pidgin as a native
who receive the
remarkable
they tremendously
and a uniform use
and an extended
is called
this process is
languages around
independent of
for this similarity
for the critical
analysis one can
used by Genie or
to be a present
and second
7
error patterns of
period for language
second language
France who learned
resemble a Pidgin
would assume.
start to change it.
are still able to
creolization and
speakers.
highly consistent
This similarity
the pidgin
Hudson
mentioned above.
pidgin language so
just a plain
hypothesis.
a certain
classic idea of a
come to invent such
basis. But
is only active
Adults can only
and Genie
(1990) show that
different native
Chinese or Korean
languages can be
made.
suggests that
this might be true,
finding that people
language learning
Genie are also
deficits without
8
languages.
a natural process.
4.0 Conclusion
able to explain the
phenomenons, the
would expect if the
and should
by pure accident
invented” by
easily start the
examined in the
or any other of
which ultimately
manages to produce
cut rules. I think
and from the
Klaus Tichacek
Mat. Nr.:
Applied NLP
languages
0.Introduction
period hypothesis.
pidgin and Creole
critical period
hypothesis.
during which
well known. For
instrument,
movements of
time of Mozart
known.
with age. Old
also reflected in
35. In this time
value.
is also a critical
that already the
them. Two years
may be doubted
2
internal changes in
mostly assumed that
cause the critical
assumption.
evidence for it.
(1967) on aphasia.
language
acquisition.
rare cases of
and second
and investigates
patterns.
function and the
after
patterns from
have a time
but after this
relearning their
language.
aphasia and
start to relearn
recovery pattern of
children may also
presents. Based on
the human brain
development both
involvement
and language
hemisphere shows.
3
and several
book remains
critical period
the damaged
hemisphere.
experiment like
due to moral
children were
particulary
Isabelle, Genie and
Chelsea.
level of her 7
period her quick
parents in the
never spoken to.
made great
development suggest
Genie mastered was
after the critical
passive
also never used
compare her use of
most astonishing
she was also
retarded or have
contrary in tests
to solve cognitive
with Genie
records of patients
performance
hemisphere lost its
during the critical
period.
critical period
learning and
4
taking on various
31. Chelsea was
was recognized at
vocabulary and
rudimentary
of language
acquisition.
unique opportunity
experiments can
under controlled
around age 4 – 6)
language like basic
learners did not
this can also be
performance of the
groups of learners
including
is present in the
Pidgin languages.
phenomenon of a
second language.
variable here.
performed better
more
performance.
again the same
mastered word order
5
morphology and
feature of the
they seemed to have
and selective
. This hypothesis
adult are too good.
mapping meaning
input.
very demanding
task.
upon the age of the
provide another
phenomenon of
this study was to
tested on their
this study was
further reduce the
as the time
against this
hypothesis.
outlined by the
an explanation
critical period
hypothesis.
6
precise on
becomes a means of
contrast to normal
sharply curtailed
vocabulary.
of the pidgin
the superstrate
languages.
grammar is a
languages. For
language but had to
language with
due to the small
pidgin as a native
who receive the
remarkable
they tremendously
and a uniform use
and an extended
is called
this process is
languages around
independent of
for this similarity
for the critical
analysis one can
used by Genie or
to be a present
and second
7
error patterns of
period for language
second language
France who learned
resemble a Pidgin
would assume.
start to change it.
are still able to
creolization and
speakers.
highly consistent
This similarity
the pidgin
Hudson
mentioned above.
pidgin language so
just a plain
hypothesis.
a certain
classic idea of a
come to invent such
basis. But
is only active
Adults can only
and Genie
(1990) show that
different native
Chinese or Korean
languages can be
made.
suggests that
this might be true,
finding that people
language learning
Genie are also
deficits without
8
languages.
a natural process.
4.0 Conclusion
able to explain the
phenomenons, the
would expect if the
and should
by pure accident
invented” by
easily start the
examined in the
or any other of
which ultimately
manages to produce
cut rules. I think
and from the
Klaus Tichacek
Mat. Nr.:
Applied NLP
languages
0.Introduction
period hypothesis.
pidgin and Creole
critical period
hypothesis.
during which
well known. For
instrument,
movements of
time of Mozart
known.
with age. Old
also reflected in
35. In this time
value.
is also a critical
that already the
them. Two years
may be doubted
2
internal changes in
mostly assumed that
cause the critical
assumption.
evidence for it.
(1967) on aphasia.
language
acquisition.
rare cases of
and second
and investigates
patterns.
function and the
after
patterns from
have a time
but after this
relearning their
language.
aphasia and
start to relearn
recovery pattern of
children may also
presents. Based on
the human brain
development both
involvement
and language
hemisphere shows.
3
and several
book remains
critical period
the damaged
hemisphere.
experiment like
due to moral
children were
particulary
Isabelle, Genie and
Chelsea.
level of her 7
period her quick
parents in the
never spoken to.
made great
development suggest
Genie mastered was
after the critical
passive
also never used
compare her use of
most astonishing
she was also
retarded or have
contrary in tests
to solve cognitive
with Genie
records of patients
performance
hemisphere lost its
during the critical
period.
critical period
learning and
4
taking on various
31. Chelsea was
was recognized at
vocabulary and
rudimentary
of language
acquisition.
unique opportunity
experiments can
under controlled
around age 4 – 6)
language like basic
learners did not
this can also be
performance of the
groups of learners
including
is present in the
Pidgin languages.
phenomenon of a
second language.
variable here.
performed better
more
performance.
again the same
mastered word order
5
morphology and
feature of the
they seemed to have
and selective
. This hypothesis
adult are too good.
mapping meaning
input.
very demanding
task.
upon the age of the
provide another
phenomenon of
this study was to
tested on their
this study was
further reduce the
as the time
against this
hypothesis.
outlined by the
an explanation
critical period
hypothesis.
6
precise on
becomes a means of
contrast to normal
sharply curtailed
vocabulary.
of the pidgin
the superstrate
languages.
grammar is a
languages. For
language but had to
language with
due to the small
pidgin as a native
who receive the
remarkable
they tremendously
and a uniform use
and an extended
is called
this process is
languages around
independent of
for this similarity
for the critical
analysis one can
used by Genie or
to be a present
and second
7
error patterns of
period for language
second language
France who learned
resemble a Pidgin
would assume.
start to change it.
are still able to
creolization and
speakers.
highly consistent
This similarity
the pidgin
Hudson
mentioned above.
pidgin language so
just a plain
hypothesis.
a certain
classic idea of a
come to invent such
basis. But
is only active
Adults can only
and Genie
(1990) show that
different native
Chinese or Korean
languages can be
made.
suggests that
this might be true,
finding that people
language learning
Genie are also
deficits without
8
languages.
a natural process.
4.0 Conclusion
able to explain the
phenomenons, the
would expect if the
and should
by pure accident
invented” by
easily start the
examined in the
or any other of
which ultimately
manages to produce
cut rules. I think
and from the
Klaus Tichacek
Mat. Nr.:
Applied NLP
languages
0.Introduction
period hypothesis.
pidgin and Creole
critical period
hypothesis.
during which
well known. For
instrument,
movements of
time of Mozart
known.
with age. Old
also reflected in
35. In this time
value.
is also a critical
that already the
them. Two years
may be doubted
2
internal changes in
mostly assumed that
cause the critical
assumption.
evidence for it.
(1967) on aphasia.
language
acquisition.
rare cases of
and second
and investigates
patterns.
function and the
after
patterns from
have a time
but after this
relearning their
language.
aphasia and
start to relearn
recovery pattern of
children may also
presents. Based on
the human brain
development both
involvement
and language
hemisphere shows.
3
and several
book remains
critical period
the damaged
hemisphere.
experiment like
due to moral
children were
particulary
Isabelle, Genie and
Chelsea.
level of her 7
period her quick
parents in the
never spoken to.
made great
development suggest
Genie mastered was
after the critical
passive
also never used
compare her use of
most astonishing
she was also
retarded or have
contrary in tests
to solve cognitive
with Genie
records of patients
performance
hemisphere lost its
during the critical
period.
critical period
learning and
4
taking on various
31. Chelsea was
was recognized at
vocabulary and
rudimentary
of language
acquisition.
unique opportunity
experiments can
under controlled
around age 4 – 6)
language like basic
learners did not
this can also be
performance of the
groups of learners
including
is present in the
Pidgin languages.
phenomenon of a
second language.
variable here.
performed better
more
performance.
again the same
mastered word order
5
morphology and
feature of the
they seemed to have
and selective
. This hypothesis
adult are too good.
mapping meaning
input.
very demanding
task.
upon the age of the
provide another
phenomenon of
this study was to
tested on their
this study was
further reduce the
as the time
against this
hypothesis.
outlined by the
an explanation
critical period
hypothesis.
6
precise on
becomes a means of
contrast to normal
sharply curtailed
vocabulary.
of the pidgin
the superstrate
languages.
grammar is a
languages. For
language but had to
language with
due to the small
pidgin as a native
who receive the
remarkable
they tremendously
and a uniform use
and an extended
is called
this process is
languages around
independent of
for this similarity
for the critical
analysis one can
used by Genie or
to be a present
and second
7
error patterns of
period for language
second language
France who learned
resemble a Pidgin
would assume.
start to change it.
are still able to
creolization and
speakers.
highly consistent
This similarity
the pidgin
Hudson
mentioned above.
pidgin language so
just a plain
hypothesis.
a certain
classic idea of a
come to invent such
basis. But
is only active
Adults can only
and Genie
(1990) show that
different native
Chinese or Korean
languages can be
made.
suggests that
this might be true,
finding that people
language learning
Genie are also
deficits without
8
languages.
a natural process.
4.0 Conclusion
able to explain the
phenomenons, the
would expect if the
and should
by pure accident
invented” by
easily start the
examined in the
or any other of
which ultimately
manages to produce
cut rules. I think
and from the
Klaus Tichacek
Mat. Nr.:
Applied NLP
languages
0.Introduction
period hypothesis.
pidgin and Creole
critical period
hypothesis.
during which
well known. For
instrument,
movements of
time of Mozart
known.
with age. Old
also reflected in
35. In this time
value.
is also a critical
that already the
them. Two years
may be doubted
2
internal changes in
mostly assumed that
cause the critical
assumption.
evidence for it.
(1967) on aphasia.
language
acquisition.
rare cases of
and second
and investigates
patterns.
function and the
after
patterns from
have a time
but after this
relearning their
language.
aphasia and
start to relearn
recovery pattern of
children may also
presents. Based on
the human brain
development both
involvement
and language
hemisphere shows.
3
and several
book remains
critical period
the damaged
hemisphere.
experiment like
due to moral
children were
particulary
Isabelle, Genie and
Chelsea.
level of her 7
period her quick
parents in the
never spoken to.
made great
development suggest
Genie mastered was
after the critical
passive
also never used
compare her use of
most astonishing
she was also
retarded or have
contrary in tests
to solve cognitive
with Genie
records of patients
performance
hemisphere lost its
during the critical
period.
critical period
learning and
4
taking on various
31. Chelsea was
was recognized at
vocabulary and
rudimentary
of language
acquisition.
unique opportunity
experiments can
under controlled
around age 4 – 6)
language like basic
learners did not
this can also be
performance of the
groups of learners
including
is present in the
Pidgin languages.
phenomenon of a
second language.
variable here.
performed better
more
performance.
again the same
mastered word order
5
morphology and
feature of the
they seemed to have
and selective
. This hypothesis
adult are too good.
mapping meaning
input.
very demanding
task.
upon the age of the
provide another
phenomenon of
this study was to
tested on their
this study was
further reduce the
as the time
against this
hypothesis.
outlined by the
an explanation
critical period
hypothesis.
6
precise on
becomes a means of
contrast to normal
sharply curtailed
vocabulary.
of the pidgin
the superstrate
languages.
grammar is a
languages. For
language but had to
language with
due to the small
pidgin as a native
who receive the
remarkable
they tremendously
and a uniform use
and an extended
is called
this process is
languages around
independent of
for this similarity
for the critical
analysis one can
used by Genie or
to be a present
and second
7
error patterns of
period for language
second language
France who learned
resemble a Pidgin
would assume.
start to change it.
are still able to
creolization and
speakers.
highly consistent
This similarity
the pidgin
Hudson
mentioned above.
pidgin language so
just a plain
hypothesis.
a certain
classic idea of a
come to invent such
basis. But
is only active
Adults can only
and Genie
(1990) show that
different native
Chinese or Korean
languages can be
made.
suggests that
this might be true,
finding that people
language learning
Genie are also
deficits without
8
languages.
a natural process.
4.0 Conclusion
able to explain the
phenomenons, the
would expect if the
and should
by pure accident
invented” by
easily start the
examined in the
or any other of
which ultimately
manages to produce
cut rules. I think
and from the
Klaus Tichacek
Mat. Nr.:
Applied NLP
languages
0.Introduction
period hypothesis.
pidgin and Creole
critical period
hypothesis.
during which
well known. For
instrument,
movements of
time of Mozart
known.
with age. Old
also reflected in
35. In this time
value.
is also a critical
that already the
them. Two years
may be doubted
2
internal changes in
mostly assumed that
cause the critical
assumption.
evidence for it.
(1967) on aphasia.
language
acquisition.
rare cases of
and second
and investigates
patterns.
function and the
after
patterns from
have a time
but after this
relearning their
language.
aphasia and
start to relearn
recovery pattern of
children may also
presents. Based on
the human brain
development both
involvement
and language
hemisphere shows.
3
and several
book remains
critical period
the damaged
hemisphere.
experiment like
due to moral
children were
particulary
Isabelle, Genie and
Chelsea.
level of her 7
period her quick
parents in the
never spoken to.
made great
development suggest
Genie mastered was
after the critical
passive
also never used
compare her use of
most astonishing
she was also
retarded or have
contrary in tests
to solve cognitive
with Genie
records of patients
performance
hemisphere lost its
during the critical
period.
critical period
learning and
4
taking on various
31. Chelsea was
was recognized at
vocabulary and
rudimentary
of language
acquisition.
unique opportunity
experiments can
under controlled
around age 4 – 6)
language like basic
learners did not
this can also be
performance of the
groups of learners
including
is present in the
Pidgin languages.
phenomenon of a
second language.
variable here.
performed better
more
performance.
again the same
mastered word order
5
morphology and
feature of the
they seemed to have
and selective
. This hypothesis
adult are too good.
mapping meaning
input.
very demanding
task.
upon the age of the
provide another
phenomenon of
this study was to
tested on their
this study was
further reduce the
as the time
against this
hypothesis.
outlined by the
an explanation
critical period
hypothesis.
6
precise on
becomes a means of
contrast to normal
sharply curtailed
vocabulary.
of the pidgin
the superstrate
languages.
grammar is a
languages. For
language but had to
language with
due to the small
pidgin as a native
who receive the
remarkable
they tremendously
and a uniform use
and an extended
is called
this process is
languages around
independent of
for this similarity
for the critical
analysis one can
used by Genie or
to be a present
and second
7
error patterns of
period for language
second language
France who learned
resemble a Pidgin
would assume.
start to change it.
are still able to
creolization and
speakers.
highly consistent
This similarity
the pidgin
Hudson
mentioned above.
pidgin language so
just a plain
hypothesis.
a certain
classic idea of a
come to invent such
basis. But
is only active
Adults can only
and Genie
(1990) show that
different native
Chinese or Korean
languages can be
made.
suggests that
this might be true,
finding that people
language learning
Genie are also
deficits without
8
languages.
a natural process.
4.0 Conclusion
able to explain the
phenomenons, the
would expect if the
and should
by pure accident
invented” by
easily start the
examined in the
or any other of
which ultimately
manages to produce
cut rules. I think
and from the
facts about Pidgin and Creole languages.
Gina La Porta
Literature Review
Professor Han
A&HL 4087 Section 1
Due Date: May 8, 2000
A Critical Look at the Critical Period Hypothesis
Introduction
The purpose of this paper is to investigate the evidence of the Critical Period Hypothesis
(Lenneberg 1967). Questions posed throughout this paper are: “Is there a critical period for
learning a second language?” If so, “At what age does a decline in learning a language
commence?” And finally, “What are the implications of these theories for second language
teaching?” Articles written by Bialystok (1997), Johnson and Newport (1989), Long (1990), and
Patkowsky (1980), are reviewed and commented upon in this paper.
Review of Material
Many researchers hold opposing beliefs about the Critical Period Hypothesis put forth by
Lenneberg (1967). The hypothesis cited in Lightbown and Spada (1999) states that there is a
“specific and limited time period for language acquisition” (p. 19). Lenneberg believed that
the “language acquisition device, like other biological functions, works successfully only when it
is stimulated at the right time” (p. 19). But what does further research suggest?
Patkowsky (1980) suggests that a critical period for second language learning does indeed exist.
His study meant to find out about the likelihood of a critical period for learning a second
language. Patkowsky found that learners under the age of fifteen achieved higher syntactic
proficiency than those who were over the age of fifteen at the onset of exposure.
Patkowsky’s study included 67 highly educated immigrants a.) from various backgrounds b.)
from various ages c.) who lived in the United States for various numbers of years, and d.) who
had all lived in the United States for at least five years. Patkowsky used a control group of 15
native-born Americans. Judges employed a rating scale of 0 to 5. Five served as the most
native–like level and 0 indicated almost no English capability. Judges rated written transcripts of
tape-recorded interviews. The study sought to discern if learners who were exposed to second
language learning before the age of 15 actually received higher syntactic proficiency than older
learners.
The results showed that of those who were exposed to English pre-puberty (participants up to the
age of fifteen), all, (except one) achieved ratings of four through five whereas those in the post-
puberty group received a wider range of scores, with the mean falling in the three range. “Thus,
even at a purely descriptive level, the distributional characteristics of the two nonnative groups
are clearly consonant with the notion of a sensitive period for the acquisition of syntax in a
second language” (p. 454).
This study was a departure from earlier studies since the most obvious measure of proficiency
had previously been in the linguistic domain of phonology. Patkowsky posited that among all
the factors he examined in his study, age was the factor that had the most significant impact of
success in learning a second language. His findings are fully consistent with the Critical Period
Hypothesis.
In their discussion of critical period effects in learning a second language, Johnson and Newport
(1989) concede that there does indeed exist a critical period for second language learning.
Johnson and Newport believe that after the age of six, the ability to learn a second language
begins to decline.
Johnson and Newport’s study involved 46 Chinese and Korean speakers learning English as a
second language. Criteria included the following: a). subjects had at least five years of exposure
to the language b.) they each had to have been living in the US for three years without leaving,
and c.) subjects included were students and faculty at the college level. In this study,
respondents were tested not only on syntax, but also on morphology, and were asked to judge the
grammaticality of many sentences. Twelve rule types comprised the test, presenting a wide
sampling of the English language.
The results showed that “subjects who began acquiring English in the United States at an earlier
age obtained higher scores on the test that those that began later” (p. 77). The results also show a
correlation between the age of acquisition and the variance in the ultimate performance in
adults. For example, they assert that there are few differences in the ultimate ability to learn
language in learners before age 15. Adults, however, attain various levels of achievement.
“While early learners are uniformly successful in acquiring their language to a high degree of
proficiency, later learners show much greater individual variation” (p. 97).
In further discussion of this proposed idea, they delineated between the alternate versions of the
hypothesis. In the exercise hypothesis, it is believed that humans easily learn languages at an
early age. As long as this capacity is exercised (at an early age), the theory proposes, a person’s
ability to learn subsequent languages will always remain viable. The alternate version of the
theories is known as the maturational state hypothesis. This hypothesis states that even though
humans have a capacity to learn languages early in life, they are unable to do so with the same
outcome if learning a second language commences in the future. Johnson and Newport believe
that their findings support the maturational state hypothesis.
Johnson and Newport’s study also lends credence to the critical period
hypothesis, but not in the manner that Lenneberg had proposed:
Lenneberg’s original proposal of a critical period in language acquisition seemed to predict a

rectangular function in the relationship between age of acquisition and ultimate performance.
That is, Lenneberg hypothesized that ‘normal’ language learning was possible between the
period from infancy to puberty, with a loss of abilities after puberty (p. 95).
Instead, Johnson and Newport (1989) found that “performance gradually declined from about
age seven on, until adulthood” (p. 95). Thus according to Johnson and Newport’s research, the
decline begins far before puberty, even before the threshold of fifteen years of age, as Patkowsky
(1980) had found.
In response to these and many other empirical studies, Long (1990), in his seminal paper,
reviewed the second language research on age–related differences. In this paper he draws
several conclusions that are relevant to this topic: 1. Both the initial rate of acquisition and the
ultimate level of attainment depend in part on the age at which learning begins. 2. There are
sensitive periods governing both first and second language development, during which both the
acquisition of different linguistic domains is successful and after which it is incomplete. 3. The
age-related loss of ability is cumulative, not a one-time event. 4. Deterioration in some
individuals begins as early as six.
In his review, Long spends much of his paper showing the flaws in the current research that
purports that there is no age limitation on achieving native-like fluency. “Contrary to recent
assertions in literature, there is growing evidence that maturational constraints are at work in
second language learning, and that they are not confined to phonology” (p. 273). Long feels that
the decline of linguistic ability while learning a second language is related not to cognitive
abilities (as some propose) but to an age related device found to be before puberty.
Long’s review gives support to both Patkowsky and Newport and Johnson (whose papers are
both discussed in his review) in terms of the focus on age:
Starting after age six appears to make it impossible for many learners (and after age 12 for the
remainder) to achieve native-like competence in phonology; starting later than the early teens,
more precisely after age 15, seems to create the same problems in morphology and syntax.
(p. 274)
Whereas Long feels the empirical evidence supports the Critical Period Hypothesis, he concludes
his article by giving credence to some of the other explanations that might help to explain the
lack of ability in adults to achieve native-like competence in a second language. Affective, input,
social, and neurological variables have all been used to discount the Critical Period Hypothesis.
Long is inclined to give the most credence to neurological factors. “Incremental losses of
plasticity with increasing brain maturation, possibly associated with myelination-if only by
default, seems a more defensible position” (p. 280).
In contrast to the above research, Bialystok (1997) wrote a paper that looks to deny the evidence
supporting the notion of a critical period for language learning. According to Bialystok:
It is undoubtedly the case that the descriptive statement regarding the general success of
younger learners in acquiring a second language is true. However, the evidence does not provide
convincing support for the claim that this advantage is the reflection of a sensitive period in
learning (p. 133).
Bialystok rather asserts that the “correspondence between language structures in the first and
second language is the most important factor affecting acquisition” (p 116). She believes that
successful language learners as adults can achieve the same success as children if they make the
time and the space to learn and if they possess the motivation from which children usually
benefit.
Bialystok reviews research by Johnson and Newport (1989), yet questions their findings based
on the following questions. Bialystok questions the subjects used, the structure of the research
and the tasks they were given to complete. First, Bialystok cited a study (Bialystok and Hakuta,
1994) in response to the subjects used that reexamines the findings by Johnson and Newport.
Bialystok and Hakuta reorganize the two segments of learners (those younger than 15 and those
older than 15) into one group. Upon this re-examination, Bialystok asserts that the level where
language noticeably declines is around the age of 20. This would mean that puberty, or a pre-
puberty finding for a decline in language acquisition is incorrect. Bialystok and Hakuta concur
with Johnson/Newport’s claims that the younger learners perform similarly to each other,
whereas the adult learners have a greater variety in performance.
Bialystok does assert, however, that the variety in adult learners abilities include those who
actually outperform the younger learners. She asserts that the languages of the Chinese/Korean
learners could be considered weak and non-dominant, thus allowing English to assume the role
of the learners’ first, not second language, rendering many of the Johnson/Newport findings
moot.
Second, Bialystok negates the structures that gave the learners difficulty. She finds that the
ability to detect errors in some, but not all of the structures did not vary with age. This,
Bialystok feels, disproves the findings as well. Third, the method gives pause to Bialystok. She
believes that the method of testing produced different results in two studies. This varied
outcome, Bialystok believes, accounts for evidence that the outcomes could not be attributed to
age factors.
Bialystok cites a number of empirical studies by White and Genesee (1996), Birdsong (1992),
Bongaerts (1995), and Juffs and Harrington (1995) which refute Patkowsky’s (1980) claims. For
example, White and Genesee found that age made no difference in grammatical and
phonological achievement. Likewise, Birdsong reported that some late learners were as
proficient as younger learners on grammaticality tasks. Bongaerts found that late learners could
achieve pronunciation levels at the same level as native speakers. Juffs and Harrington provide
counter evidence to that of researchers such as Johnson/Newport and Patkowsky, by showing
that some adult learners can achieve similar levels of success as younger learners. After
supplying these data, Bialystok then admits that this evidence only serves as a minor segment of
the total evidence on this subject.
At this point Bialystok looks to the lack of adult success on outside factors other than age.
Bialystok asserts that the relationship between languages is the reason for differences in
attainment.
The hypothesis is that language learners will find it difficult to master a structure that was not a
defining feature of the first language and relatively easy to master a structure shared across the
two languages. These differences may be exacerbated for older learners, but there should be no
age differences in the ability to learn structures that are shared across the two languages (p.
126).
Discussion
After reviewing the literature documented in this paper, I have confirmed my previous thoughts
about the Critical Period Hypothesis. I believe that there does exist a critical period for learning
a second language. After the age of fifteen, there exists a regressive, diminished capability in
learners to acquire a language. In certain linguistic domains, such as phonology, this may
happen as early as the age of six. These findings present educators with serious implications for
second language teaching. The following discussion is an attempt to answer the questions posed
at the beginning of this paper.
1.) “Is there a critical period for learning a second language?” The evidence, in my opinion,
seems to overwhelmingly state that there is indeed a critical period by which learning must
commence in order to afford the learner with the chance to achieve native-like capabilities. It
has been documented repeatedly that learners achieve better results depending on the age at
which they begin to learn a second language. Even though some researchers try to attribute this
phenomenon to other factors, I believe that there is an innate age-related factor.
Bialystok’s proposal that interference between first and second language factors affects second
language acquisition in adults, is suspect. If interference between two languages is the cause,
why then does it not provide an overwhelming obstacle for sequential bilingual children, who
have been seen to reach native-like proficiency in both languages?
Also, Bialystok interprets Newport and Johnson’s (1989) study showing that some adults had
better success with some structures to mean that there is no critical period for second language
learning. But couldn’t the success of some adults over their younger counterparts be attributed to
the possibility of advanced cognitive development, instead of the dismissal of an age-related
device? Further, Bialystok concludes that because Birdsong, Bongaerts, and Juffs/Harrington,
provide contradictory claims to Patkowsky and Johnson and Newport, that some adult learners
achieve native-like competence, there is no age-related device. Whereas this data is important, I
do not feel it is definitive in refuting the existence of a sensitive period for language learning.
Merely, these examples could be the exceptions, not the rule. Not only do adult successes in the
above mentioned studies not disprove the existence of a sensitive period, but all can be attributed
to outside factors. For example, in the grammaticality judgement tasks given by Birdsong, could
the tasks have simply been developmentally beyond the capabilities of the children tested? I
choose to lay my trust in the much larger stack of evidence that suggests this is so. Simply
because a possibility in the general population is documented, it does not mean all other
empirical studies showing overwhelming patterns should be disregarded.
2.) “At what age does a decline in learning a language commence?”
There is much disagreement in the literature about the precise onset of a decline in the ability to
learn a language. Patkowsky would assert that the age is 15 for morphology and syntax, while
Newport/Johnson assert that for phonology it begins at age 6. Others, like Bialystok, assert that
the delineation begins at the age of twenty. Because there is much disagreement among
researchers on this point, it is difficult to assert an exact moment when a decline commences. It
seems more acceptable to suggest that a decline in the ability to learn a second language exists at
some point and is documented by most researchers. Since the ability to achieve competency
varies to a great degree in adults and less so in children (who possess the same high proficiency
capabilities), does this not in itself suggest an overall pattern of ability set on by age? Perhaps,
the onset of a sensitive period changes according to the individual just as growth patterns and
personal milestones are reached at different times in one’s life. Perhaps if future studies were to
measure similar abilities under similar conditions, more consistent data would emerge.
3.) “What are the implications of these theories for second language teaching?” Johnson and
Newport’s (1989) assertions have wide ranging implications for classroom teaching. They found
that it is best to measure a learner’s first exposure to English as their age of arrival in the US, not
the first formal instruction in English in their native country. Because of this, we can assume
that formal instruction has less of an impact on one’s learning of English as compared with
immersion in that culture or society. Johnson and Newport state:
More profoundly, it (the results of their study) means that the learning
which occurs in the formal language classroom may be unlike the
learning which occurs during immersion, such that early instruction
does not necessarily have the advantage for ultimate performance that
is held by early immersion (p. 81).
Because of these findings, teachers need to be aware of the possible limitations that children and
adults possess regarding initial achievement levels. Learners should be given appropriate time to
become immersed in the language before being expected to produce the new language: with an
even greater patience given to adults. Also, teachers should encourage as much interaction with
the new culture (immersion) as possible and maximize the amount of exposure to the L2.
Conclusion
Because data in many empirical studies is varied, researchers should in the future refine their
questions by referring to the same specific empirical issues. When researchers search out the
answers to similar questions, the results are telling. The Critical Period Hypothesis, stating that
learners who are exposed to a second language before puberty have the propensity to acquire a
native-like proficiency of the language, seems to hold true today with strong empirical research
to support it. Unlike what some researchers propose, simply because an achievement is possible
for some members of the general population, it does not mean that an entire hypothesis should be
discarded.
Bibliography
Bialystok, E. 1997: The structure of age: in search of barriers to

second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 13, 116-137.
Birdsong, D. 1992: Ultimate attainment in second language acquisition. Language 68,

706-55.
Bongarts, T., Planken, B. and Schills, E. 1995: Can late learners attain a native
accent in a foreign language? A test of the critical period hypothesis. In Singleton, D. and
Lengyel, Z. editors, The age factor in second language acquisition, Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters, 30-50.
Johnson, J.S. and Newport, E.L. 1989: Critical period effects in second language learning:
the influence of maturational state on the acquisition of English as a second language. Cognitive
Psychology 21, 60-99.
Juffs, A., and Harrington, M. 1995: Parsing effects in L2 sentence processing:

subject and object asymmetries in Wh-extraction. Studies in Second-Language Acquisition 17,
483-516.
Lenneberg, E. 1967: Biological foundations of language. New York:

Wiley.
Lightbown, P. and Spada, N. 1999: How languages are learned.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Long, M. 1990: Maturational constraints on language development.

Studies in second language acquisition 12, 251-85.
Patkowksy, M. 1980: The sensitive period for the acquisition of syntax in a second
language. Language Learning 30, 449-72.
White, L. and Genesee, F. 1996: How native is near-native? The issue of ultimate
attainment in adult second language acquisition. Second Language Research 12, 233-65.
Gina La Porta
Literature Review
Professor Han
A&HL 4087 Section 1
Due Date: May 8, 2000
A Critical Look at the Critical Period Hypothesis
Introduction
The purpose of this paper is to investigate the evidence of the Critical Period Hypothesis
(Lenneberg 1967). Questions posed throughout this paper are: “Is there a critical period for
learning a second language?” If so, “At what age does a decline in learning a language
commence?” And finally, “What are the implications of these theories for second language
teaching?” Articles written by Bialystok (1997), Johnson and Newport (1989), Long (1990), and
Patkowsky (1980), are reviewed and commented upon in this paper.
Review of Material
Many researchers hold opposing beliefs about the Critical Period Hypothesis put forth by
Lenneberg (1967). The hypothesis cited in Lightbown and Spada (1999) states that there is a
“specific and limited time period for language acquisition” (p. 19). Lenneberg believed that
the “language acquisition device, like other biological functions, works successfully only when it
is stimulated at the right time” (p. 19). But what does further research suggest?
Patkowsky (1980) suggests that a critical period for second language learning does indeed exist.
His study meant to find out about the likelihood of a critical period for learning a second
language. Patkowsky found that learners under the age of fifteen achieved higher syntactic
proficiency than those who were over the age of fifteen at the onset of exposure.
Patkowsky’s study included 67 highly educated immigrants a.) from various backgrounds b.)
from various ages c.) who lived in the United States for various numbers of years, and d.) who
had all lived in the United States for at least five years. Patkowsky used a control group of 15
native-born Americans. Judges employed a rating scale of 0 to 5. Five served as the most
native–like level and 0 indicated almost no English capability. Judges rated written transcripts of
tape-recorded interviews. The study sought to discern if learners who were exposed to second
language learning before the age of 15 actually received higher syntactic proficiency than older
learners.
The results showed that of those who were exposed to English pre-puberty (participants up to the
age of fifteen), all, (except one) achieved ratings of four through five whereas those in the post-
puberty group received a wider range of scores, with the mean falling in the three range. “Thus,
even at a purely descriptive level, the distributional characteristics of the two nonnative groups
are clearly consonant with the notion of a sensitive period for the acquisition of syntax in a
second language” (p. 454).
This study was a departure from earlier studies since the most obvious measure of proficiency
had previously been in the linguistic domain of phonology. Patkowsky posited that among all
the factors he examined in his study, age was the factor that had the most significant impact of
success in learning a second language. His findings are fully consistent with the Critical Period
Hypothesis.
In their discussion of critical period effects in learning a second language, Johnson and Newport
(1989) concede that there does indeed exist a critical period for second language learning.
Johnson and Newport believe that after the age of six, the ability to learn a second language
begins to decline.
Johnson and Newport’s study involved 46 Chinese and Korean speakers learning English as a
second language. Criteria included the following: a). subjects had at least five years of exposure
to the language b.) they each had to have been living in the US for three years without leaving,
and c.) subjects included were students and faculty at the college level. In this study,
respondents were tested not only on syntax, but also on morphology, and were asked to judge the
grammaticality of many sentences. Twelve rule types comprised the test, presenting a wide
sampling of the English language.
The results showed that “subjects who began acquiring English in the United States at an earlier
age obtained higher scores on the test that those that began later” (p. 77). The results also show a
correlation between the age of acquisition and the variance in the ultimate performance in
adults. For example, they assert that there are few differences in the ultimate ability to learn
language in learners before age 15. Adults, however, attain various levels of achievement.
“While early learners are uniformly successful in acquiring their language to a high degree of
proficiency, later learners show much greater individual variation” (p. 97).
In further discussion of this proposed idea, they delineated between the alternate versions of the
hypothesis. In the exercise hypothesis, it is believed that humans easily learn languages at an
early age. As long as this capacity is exercised (at an early age), the theory proposes, a person’s
ability to learn subsequent languages will always remain viable. The alternate version of the
theories is known as the maturational state hypothesis. This hypothesis states that even though
humans have a capacity to learn languages early in life, they are unable to do so with the same
outcome if learning a second language commences in the future. Johnson and Newport believe
that their findings support the maturational state hypothesis.
Johnson and Newport’s study also lends credence to the critical period
hypothesis, but not in the manner that Lenneberg had proposed:
Lenneberg’s original proposal of a critical period in language acquisition seemed to predict a
rectangular function in the relationship between age of acquisition and ultimate performance.
That is, Lenneberg hypothesized that ‘normal’ language learning was possible between the
period from infancy to puberty, with a loss of abilities after puberty (p. 95).
Instead, Johnson and Newport (1989) found that “performance gradually declined from about
age seven on, until adulthood” (p. 95). Thus according to Johnson and Newport’s research, the
decline begins far before puberty, even before the threshold of fifteen years of age, as Patkowsky
(1980) had found.
In response to these and many other empirical studies, Long (1990), in his seminal paper,
reviewed the second language research on age–related differences. In this paper he draws
several conclusions that are relevant to this topic: 1. Both the initial rate of acquisition and the
ultimate level of attainment depend in part on the age at which learning begins. 2. There are
sensitive periods governing both first and second language development, during which both the
acquisition of different linguistic domains is successful and after which it is incomplete. 3. The
age-related loss of ability is cumulative, not a one-time event. 4. Deterioration in some
individuals begins as early as six.
In his review, Long spends much of his paper showing the flaws in the current research that
purports that there is no age limitation on achieving native-like fluency. “Contrary to recent
assertions in literature, there is growing evidence that maturational constraints are at work in
second language learning, and that they are not confined to phonology” (p. 273). Long feels that
the decline of linguistic ability while learning a second language is related not to cognitive
abilities (as some propose) but to an age related device found to be before puberty.
Long’s review gives support to both Patkowsky and Newport and Johnson (whose papers are
both discussed in his review) in terms of the focus on age:
Starting after age six appears to make it impossible for many learners (and after age 12 for the
remainder) to achieve native-like competence in phonology; starting later than the early teens,
more precisely after age 15, seems to create the same problems in morphology and syntax.
(p. 274)
Whereas Long feels the empirical evidence supports the Critical Period Hypothesis, he concludes
his article by giving credence to some of the other explanations that might help to explain the
lack of ability in adults to achieve native-like competence in a second language. Affective, input,
social, and neurological variables have all been used to discount the Critical Period Hypothesis.
Long is inclined to give the most credence to neurological factors. “Incremental losses of
plasticity with increasing brain maturation, possibly associated with myelination-if only by
default, seems a more defensible position” (p. 280).
In contrast to the above research, Bialystok (1997) wrote a paper that looks to deny the evidence
supporting the notion of a critical period for language learning. According to Bialystok:
It is undoubtedly the case that the descriptive statement regarding the general success of
younger learners in acquiring a second language is true. However, the evidence does not provide
convincing support for the claim that this advantage is the reflection of a sensitive period in
learning (p. 133).
Bialystok rather asserts that the “correspondence between language structures in the first and
second language is the most important factor affecting acquisition” (p 116). She believes that
successful language learners as adults can achieve the same success as children if they make the
time and the space to learn and if they possess the motivation from which children usually
benefit.
Bialystok reviews research by Johnson and Newport (1989), yet questions their findings based
on the following questions. Bialystok questions the subjects used, the structure of the research
and the tasks they were given to complete. First, Bialystok cited a study (Bialystok and Hakuta,
1994) in response to the subjects used that reexamines the findings by Johnson and Newport.
Bialystok and Hakuta reorganize the two segments of learners (those younger than 15 and those
older than 15) into one group. Upon this re-examination, Bialystok asserts that the level where
language noticeably declines is around the age of 20. This would mean that puberty, or a pre-
puberty finding for a decline in language acquisition is incorrect. Bialystok and Hakuta concur
with Johnson/Newport’s claims that the younger learners perform similarly to each other,
whereas the adult learners have a greater variety in performance.
Bialystok does assert, however, that the variety in adult learners abilities include those who
actually outperform the younger learners. She asserts that the languages of the Chinese/Korean
learners could be considered weak and non-dominant, thus allowing English to assume the role
of the learners’ first, not second language, rendering many of the Johnson/Newport findings
moot.
Second, Bialystok negates the structures that gave the learners difficulty. She finds that the
ability to detect errors in some, but not all of the structures did not vary with age. This,
Bialystok feels, disproves the findings as well. Third, the method gives pause to Bialystok. She
believes that the method of testing produced different results in two studies. This varied
outcome, Bialystok believes, accounts for evidence that the outcomes could not be attributed to
age factors.
Bialystok cites a number of empirical studies by White and Genesee (1996), Birdsong (1992),
Bongaerts (1995), and Juffs and Harrington (1995) which refute Patkowsky’s (1980) claims. For
example, White and Genesee found that age made no difference in grammatical and
phonological achievement. Likewise, Birdsong reported that some late learners were as
proficient as younger learners on grammaticality tasks. Bongaerts found that late learners could
achieve pronunciation levels at the same level as native speakers. Juffs and Harrington provide
counter evidence to that of researchers such as Johnson/Newport and Patkowsky, by showing
that some adult learners can achieve similar levels of success as younger learners. After
supplying these data, Bialystok then admits that this evidence only serves as a minor segment of
the total evidence on this subject.
At this point Bialystok looks to the lack of adult success on outside factors other than age.
Bialystok asserts that the relationship between languages is the reason for differences in
attainment.
The hypothesis is that language learners will find it difficult to master a structure that was not a
defining feature of the first language and relatively easy to master a structure shared across the
two languages. These differences may be exacerbated for older learners, but there should be no
age differences in the ability to learn structures that are shared across the two languages (p.
126).
Discussion
After reviewing the literature documented in this paper, I have confirmed my previous thoughts
about the Critical Period Hypothesis. I believe that there does exist a critical period for learning
a second language. After the age of fifteen, there exists a regressive, diminished capability in
learners to acquire a language. In certain linguistic domains, such as phonology, this may
happen as early as the age of six. These findings present educators with serious implications for
second language teaching. The following discussion is an attempt to answer the questions posed
at the beginning of this paper.
1.) “Is there a critical period for learning a second language?” The evidence, in my opinion,
seems to overwhelmingly state that there is indeed a critical period by which learning must
commence in order to afford the learner with the chance to achieve native-like capabilities. It
has been documented repeatedly that learners achieve better results depending on the age at
which they begin to learn a second language. Even though some researchers try to attribute this
phenomenon to other factors, I believe that there is an innate age-related factor.
Bialystok’s proposal that interference between first and second language factors affects second
language acquisition in adults, is suspect. If interference between two languages is the cause,
why then does it not provide an overwhelming obstacle for sequential bilingual children, who
have been seen to reach native-like proficiency in both languages?
Also, Bialystok interprets Newport and Johnson’s (1989) study showing that some adults had
better success with some structures to mean that there is no critical period for second language
learning. But couldn’t the success of some adults over their younger counterparts be attributed to
the possibility of advanced cognitive development, instead of the dismissal of an age-related
device? Further, Bialystok concludes that because Birdsong, Bongaerts, and Juffs/Harrington,
provide contradictory claims to Patkowsky and Johnson and Newport, that some adult learners
achieve native-like competence, there is no age-related device. Whereas this data is important, I
do not feel it is definitive in refuting the existence of a sensitive period for language learning.
Merely, these examples could be the exceptions, not the rule. Not only do adult successes in the
above mentioned studies not disprove the existence of a sensitive period, but all can be attributed
to outside factors. For example, in the grammaticality judgement tasks given by Birdsong, could
the tasks have simply been developmentally beyond the capabilities of the children tested? I
choose to lay my trust in the much larger stack of evidence that suggests this is so. Simply
because a possibility in the general population is documented, it does not mean all other
empirical studies showing overwhelming patterns should be disregarded.
2.) “At what age does a decline in learning a language commence?”
There is much disagreement in the literature about the precise onset of a decline in the ability to
learn a language. Patkowsky would assert that the age is 15 for morphology and syntax, while
Newport/Johnson assert that for phonology it begins at age 6. Others, like Bialystok, assert that
the delineation begins at the age of twenty. Because there is much disagreement among
researchers on this point, it is difficult to assert an exact moment when a decline commences. It
seems more acceptable to suggest that a decline in the ability to learn a second language exists at
some point and is documented by most researchers. Since the ability to achieve competency
varies to a great degree in adults and less so in children (who possess the same high proficiency
capabilities), does this not in itself suggest an overall pattern of ability set on by age? Perhaps,
the onset of a sensitive period changes according to the individual just as growth patterns and
personal milestones are reached at different times in one’s life. Perhaps if future studies were to
measure similar abilities under similar conditions, more consistent data would emerge.
3.) “What are the implications of these theories for second language teaching?” Johnson and
Newport’s (1989) assertions have wide ranging implications for classroom teaching. They found
that it is best to measure a learner’s first exposure to English as their age of arrival in the US, not
the first formal instruction in English in their native country. Because of this, we can assume
that formal instruction has less of an impact on one’s learning of English as compared with
immersion in that culture or society. Johnson and Newport state:
More profoundly, it (the results of their study) means that the learning
which occurs in the formal language classroom may be unlike the
learning which occurs during immersion, such that early instruction
does not necessarily have the advantage for ultimate performance that
is held by early immersion (p. 81).
Because of these findings, teachers need to be aware of the possible limitations that children and
adults possess regarding initial achievement levels. Learners should be given appropriate time to
become immersed in the language before being expected to produce the new language: with an
even greater patience given to adults. Also, teachers should encourage as much interaction with
the new culture (immersion) as possible and maximize the amount of exposure to the L2.
Conclusion
Because data in many empirical studies is varied, researchers should in the future refine their
questions by referring to the same specific empirical issues. When researchers search out the
answers to similar questions, the results are telling. The Critical Period Hypothesis, stating that
learners who are exposed to a second language before puberty have the propensity to acquire a
native-like proficiency of the language, seems to hold true today with strong empirical research
to support it. Unlike what some researchers propose, simply because an achievement is possible
for some members of the general population, it does not mean that an entire hypothesis should be
discarded.
Bibliography
Bialystok, E. 1997: The structure of age: in search of barriers to

second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 13, 116-137.
Birdsong, D. 1992: Ultimate attainment in second language acquisition. Language 68,

706-55.
Bongarts, T., Planken, B. and Schills, E. 1995: Can late learners attain a native
accent in a foreign language? A test of the critical period hypothesis. In Singleton, D. and
Lengyel, Z. editors, The age factor in second language acquisition, Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters, 30-50.
Johnson, J.S. and Newport, E.L. 1989: Critical period effects in second language learning:
the influence of maturational state on the acquisition of English as a second language. Cognitive
Psychology 21, 60-99.
Juffs, A., and Harrington, M. 1995: Parsing effects in L2 sentence processing:

subject and object asymmetries in Wh-extraction. Studies in Second-Language Acquisition 17,
483-516.
Lenneberg, E. 1967: Biological foundations of language. New York:

Wiley.
Lightbown, P. and Spada, N. 1999: How languages are learned.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Long, M. 1990: Maturational constraints on language development.

Studies in second language acquisition 12, 251-85.
Patkowksy, M. 1980: The sensitive period for the acquisition of syntax in a second
language. Language Learning 30, 449-72.
White, L. and Genesee, F. 1996: How native is near-native? The issue of ultimate
attainment in adult second language acquisition. Second Language Research 12, 233-65.

New Scrap

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

New Scrap

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Name: Meraflor N.

Learning, Insights, and Contributions

Actually, in making our empirical study entitled “School Environmental

Well, in conceptual framework, I gathered the ideas and concepts from

As I investigated the empirical, I’ve learned a lot. First, I knew how to

Furthermore, the insights there, through this study we can able to

As a student, I learned a lot from the seminars/workshops

In the first two seminars held at Bukidnon State University

Well, they also emphasized the major principles in teaching

Of course, by considering those factors we can have a

Furthermore, in the last seminar held at Kibawe tourism hall

Mr. Marcwin Dorado

THRU: Ms. Louidel Pagas

I am Ms. Sharon Diana T. Lorono, a full-time Information Technology instructor at STI-Valencia

Again, thank you and more power!

Ms. Meraflor N. Montajes

[edit] Second language acquisition

Experimental and observational studies

Critical Period Hypothesis and

Support in favor of the CPH:

Loss of neural plasticity in the brain with age.

Loss of access to the language learning faculty.

Maladaptive gain of processing capacity with maturation.

The idea that learning inhibits learning.

Support against the CPH:

Krashen's Theories of language acquisition provide alternate hypotheses to explain second

Support against the CPH, continued…

4. Problems in second language testing.

5. The role of the learning environment.

Critical Period Hypothesis and

Birdsong, David (Ed.) (1999)

Support in favor of the CPH:

Loss of access to the language learning faculty.

Maladaptive gain of processing capacity with maturation.

The idea that learning inhibits learning.

Study on native Korean and Chinese speakers found that the

Support against the CPH:

Statements supporting CPH misinterpret the facts and, in turn,

The idea that neurological differences in children and adults

Undeserved emphasis on unsuccessful adult second language

Problems in second language testing.

The role of the learning environment.

The role of learner motivation.

It is my belief, after reviewing data on both sides of the

Critical Period Hypothesis and

Support in favor of the CPH:

Loss of access to the language learning faculty.

Maladaptive gain of processing capacity with maturation.

A "use it then lose it" philosophy and a "use it or lose it"

The idea that learning inhibits learning.

Support against the CPH:

Statements supporting CPH misinterpret the facts and, in turn,

The idea that neurological differences in children and adults

Undeserved emphasis on unsuccessful adult second language

Problems in second language testing.

The role of the learning environment.

The role of learner motivation.

It is my belief, after reviewing data on both sides of the

Critical Period Hypothesis and

Support in favor of the CPH:

Loss of access to the language learning faculty.

Maladaptive gain of processing capacity with maturation.