This term paper will focus on the discussion of the putative maturational constraints for second language acquisition. The age factor is an aspect of first and second language acquisition research which has engendered very much controversy. In the discussion about age-related effects on language acquisition, one can find disagreements as to both the facts and to their possible explanations. The different points of view range from the notion that young learners are in all aspects of language learning more efficient and achieve better results, to the contrary position that older learners are the better learners.
In this paper, four of the positions concerning the age factor, which have been listed by Singleton, will be presented because they provide a good overview of the different views on this topic and the respective evidence belonging to them. Many of the differences in the results of various studies are due to the differences in how the results are elicited. The experimental design plays an important role for the outcomes.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Critical Period Hypothesis
2.1 Age and First Language Acquisition
2.2 Age and Second Language Acquisition
3. Positions
3.1 Younger learners are the more successful learners
3.2 Older learners are the more successful learners
3.3 Younger learners are better in some respects
3.4 Younger learners are better in the long run
4. Learner Characteristics: Younger Learners vs. Older Learners
5. Input
6. Early Second Language Learning
7. Conclusion
Objectives & Core Themes
This paper examines the influence of age on second language acquisition, specifically investigating the validity of the Critical Period Hypothesis and the diverse perspectives regarding the efficiency of learners at different developmental stages. The research seeks to determine whether a biological cut-off point exists for successful language learning or if individual factors such as motivation, cognitive maturity, and the quality of input play more significant roles.
- The Critical Period Hypothesis and its neurobiological and cognitive foundations.
- Contrasting positions regarding the performance differences between younger and older learners.
- The role of learner characteristics, including prior knowledge, cognitive maturity, and motivation.
- The impact of input quality and learning context (formal vs. naturalistic) on language attainment.
- Practical considerations for early foreign language instruction in school settings.
Excerpt from the Book
3.1 Younger learners are the more successful learners
The following position derives directly from the conception of the Critical Period in L1 acquisition research. The supporters of this position argue that younger L2 learners are generally the more successful learners. In most versions it is claimed that puberty is the point from which on the language learning capacity declines. This position is also the favoured one in public belief.
One area of evidence for this first position concerning the CPH are the American studies of programmes of foreign languages in elementary schools. However, these studies were criticised because of the experimental design which did not take into account other variables – for example the compared groups differed in length of exposure. (cf. Singleton 1989: 80-82)
A second kind of evidence is the study of Asher&Garcia (1969) which illustrated ‘age of arrival’ (AOA) as the best predictor for a successful acquisition of a native-like pronunciation. The accents of 71 Cuban immigrants to the United States was judged by native speakers of English, in this case 19 high-school students. The immigrants, as well as a control group of native speakers were recorded when uttering the same set of English sentences. Asher&Garcia found that none of the Cuban immigrants was rated as native-like in terms of pronunciation. However, those who had entered the United States at a young age had the highest ratings, especially those with an AOA of 1 to 6 years. Consequently, it was found out that the younger a child was when it entered the foreign language environment, the higher were the chances to acquire a native-like accent. This probability increased with longer times of exposure to the L2. (cf. Singleton 1989: 83ff)
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: Outlines the controversial nature of the age factor in language research and introduces the core goal of analyzing four distinct positions concerning age-related maturational constraints.
2. Critical Period Hypothesis: Explores the theoretical background, neurobiological explanations, and the distinction between strong and weak versions of the Critical Period Hypothesis.
3. Positions: Presents four academic viewpoints on the age factor, ranging from the belief in younger learners' superiority to the nuances of long-term attainment.
4. Learner Characteristics: Younger Learners vs. Older Learners: Discusses how non-biological factors like cognitive maturity, prior knowledge, and motivation influence the language learning process.
5. Input: Analyzes how the quality and quantity of linguistic input, as well as the distinction between formal and naturalistic settings, affect learners of different ages.
6. Early Second Language Learning: Applies the theoretical discussion to educational policy, evaluating the arguments for and against starting foreign language instruction in primary schools.
7. Conclusion: Synthesizes findings, concluding that age is not an isolated variable and that success is contingent upon a complex interplay of individual and environmental factors.
Keywords
Second Language Acquisition, Critical Period Hypothesis, Age Factor, Neurolinguistics, Cognitive Maturity, Language Input, Foreign Language Instruction, Bilingualism, Phonological Competence, Motivation, Implicit Learning, Naturalistic Exposure, Immersion, Morpho-syntax, Language Proficiency.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this paper?
The paper focuses on the ongoing academic debate regarding maturational constraints in second language acquisition, specifically exploring the validity of the "Critical Period Hypothesis."
What are the central thematic fields discussed?
The core themes include neurobiological evidence, the role of cognitive maturity and prior knowledge, the impact of input types, and the practical implications for teaching languages in primary schools.
What is the main research question or objective?
The objective is to analyze whether a "critical period" for language acquisition truly exists or if the observed variations in learner success are influenced by a broader range of psychological, social, and pedagogical variables.
Which scientific methods are primarily utilized in this work?
The work is a literature-based analysis that evaluates empirical findings and studies (such as those by Singleton, Asher & Garcia, and Krashen) to compare different theoretical positions.
What is covered in the main section of the paper?
The main section details four distinct academic positions: the superiority of younger learners, the counter-argument that older learners are more successful, the nuanced view that each group has specific strengths, and the consensus that younger learners show better long-term attainment.
Which keywords best characterize this research?
Key terms include Second Language Acquisition, Critical Period Hypothesis, age factor, learner characteristics, and language input quality.
Why are older learners often found to be better in initial learning stages?
Older learners benefit from higher cognitive maturity, advanced problem-solving skills, and existing metalinguistic awareness, which allow them to process abstract language rules faster than young children.
How does the "consensus view" define the age advantage in language learning?
The consensus view suggests that while older learners may have an initial advantage in formal instruction (rate of acquisition), younger learners generally demonstrate higher ultimate attainment in naturalistic exposure situations over the long term.
- Quote paper
- Carina Kröger (Author), 2008, The Age Factor in Second Language Acquisition, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/346277
