http://www.tc.columbia.edu/academic/tesol/Han/GinaLaporta.

htm

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.