L2 acquisition in childhood, adulthood
and old age
PENFIELD AND LENNEBERG - the forerunner and "father" of CPH
The effects of early second language instruction at school
Language learning in older adulthood
❌ Problem: recent research does not support the idea of CPH
Penfield's idea
the optimal period for language acquisition ends when the brain starts to lose its plasticity --->this happens with the brain at the end of childhood
“for the purposes of learning languages, the human brain becomes increasingly stiff and rigid after the age of
nine”
based on an observation
there was a greater likelihood of language functions being transferred from an injured to a healthy part of the brain in children than in adults -->beyond childhood the brain became less adept at language learning
promoted early foreign language instruction
❌ PROBLEMATIC:
Current consensus (among cognitive scientists): the brain retains
plasticity throughout life, and that it may be modified by experience at any age
Neurobiological studies: fail to relate differences in
brain activation patterns to differences in target language proficiency
Imply: there is no CP
Lenneberg's idea
There is a development process in the brain which is completed by the “critical age” of puberty
❌ PROBLEMATIC:
⭐ after puberty the incidence of ‘language-learning-blocks’ rapidly increases
⭐ foreign languages have to be learned through a conscious and labored effort
⭐ foreign accents cannot be overcome easily
He made his assertation based on a process that had not been empirically explored
The process
referred to was that of the lateralization of language functions to the brain hemisphere dominant for language (usually the left)
NOW: this process is no longer taken seriously by neurosciencetists
He suggested puberty as the “critical age” -->others claim different age
Current research suggests: a complex and multifactored relationship between lateralization and age
✅ They made a large and powerful impact relative to the
idea that our language learning capacity is programmed to undergo a sudden and serious decline at a particular point at the end of childhood
where precisely this point is located ❓
The critical period hypothesis
CPH: the idea that the biological ageing puts constraints on what can be attained by
language acquirers beyond a certain point
Similar term: SENSITIVE PERIOD
the period during which a child can acquire
language easily, rapidly, perfectly, and without instruction
the difference between SP and CP is not clear
Has been applied to: 1st lg acquisition + the acquisiton of additional lgs
CP in biology: a limited phase inthe development of an organism during which a particular capacity or behaviour must be acquired if it is to be acquired at all.
If language acquisition in human beingsis affected by the limits of such a critical period (e.g. imprinting in ducklings) -->the implication would seem to be that unless language acquisition begins before the period ends --->it will not happen
Findings in favor of CPH:
cases of children who (because of parental neglect) are deprived of the experience
of language in childhood
children who are rescued in
adolescence typically do NOT fail to develop language
BUT: their progress seems to be of a limited or unusual kind
GROWING CONSENSUS: additional language users’ relationship with
their languages cannot be explained simply in terms of maturation
BUT: being deprived of language-mediated social intercourse during a particularly intense phase of cognitive development
It does not provide a truly secure basis for
accepting the veracity of critical period claims.
(e.g. sign lg)
studies on immigrants’ language development
younger arrivals in a country where the dominant language is different from the immigrants’ home languages are more likely than older arrivals to end up passing for native speakers of the new language in terms of all aspects of the proficiency they attain
BUT: it is only a tendecy -->not applies for all immigrants
⚠ the level of proficiency of a user of additional languages should ever be exactly
the same as that of a monolingual native speaker
+ it is difficulty to define what a native speaker actually is
Proficiency attainment can also be connected to: the development of linguistico-cultural identity + socio-affective factors generally
the reason for the slight differences between native speakers and native-like non-natives has to do with the effects of multi-competence (rather than age)
❗ THE IMPORTANCE OF: socio-affective factors + experience
trend to reduce the starting age of L2 learning at
school
“Beyond Age Effects” (Pfenninger&Singleton - study)
it has NOT done
on the basis of relevant research
FINDINGS:
pupils who are taught an L2 at primary level do not in fact in
the long run maintain the advantage of their early start
later beginners who benefit from less learning time generally prove in
due course to be equal or superior to the earlier beginners across a range of measures
Studied: the effects of an earlier and a later start to the school learning of English as a foreign language in Switzerland
Effects of a later start - age 13
Effects of an earlier start - age 8
RESULTS:
in the first year of secondary school, the early starters (who had five years’ more experience of school exposure to English than the later starters) demonstrated superior lexical knowledge
the later starters, who were less proficient in lexicosemantics terms at this stage, transferred more elements from their background
languages (German and French) than the early starters
after 6 months: the later starters had caught up with the early starters and sometimes surpassed them in a number of domains
he later starters proceeded
at a faster rate when acquiring morpho-syntactic forms and certain structures
no clear evidence of any special
advantage to beginning the study of a second language early
overall, the late starters did better than the early starters, as they were able to acquire as much second language knowledge as the earlier starters within a very considerably shorter period of time
AND to progress faster than younger starters on a variety of oral and written tasks
the earlier starters were not able to retain their learning advantages in the longer
run
the learner’s language competence depends critically on the intensity and quality of the learning environment (rather than quantity and length of instruction)
Attitude of learners: 😃
young learners’ positive attitude may be seen to be associated with chronological age (children being particularly enthusiastic and motivated learners)
----->it is important not to confuse biological age with starting age
☑ earlier starting experience proved beneficial for just one specific learner group
Immersion in the target language 👥
--->simultaneous bilinguals who were biliterate and had in addition received substantial parental support (in the short and the long run), as opposed to monolinguals and non-biliterate bilinguals (simultaneous or sequential)
Harley's finding:
an early start is not adventageous -->the late immersion students
doing on the whole better than the early immersion students
Age-related declines are still widely believed
to reveal that human cognitive capacities decline across the lifespan
Reflected in:
reduced working memory capacity
reduced learning and recall of new information
a slowing of processing speed
decrease in attention
poorer encoding of contextual information in memory + remembering people’s names
increase in reaction times
deficits in inhibitory control
changes in speech production and perception
age-related cognitive decline has been reported to be preceded by structural changes
~for example
loss of functional brain connectivity, cortical thinning or the decline of white matter integrit
Many specialist challenges the
conventional view that the age factor as the non-plus-ultra predictor of L2 learning outcome
some of the cultural constructions of old age can harden and become ageist stereotypes
in turn---> age stereotypes
can threaten the self-perception, identity and agency of ageing learners
that the brain preserves large parts of its plasticity even at an advanced age and remains receptive towards new languages
a wide variance in L2 acquisition attainment in older adults based on inter-individual differences such as cognitive functioning and auditory acuity
there is no neurobiological evidence for any declines in the processing capacities of healthy older adults
-except in the case of neurological diseases where there is evidence of pathology
Hypothesis: L2 learning a promising way of contributing to healthy and active ageing
▶ because lg learning is a cognitively challenging activity that
seems to promote neural plasticity and foster social interaction, individual mobility and autonomy
NECESSARY: to do more research on the stimulation of
social well-being through language learning or language use in older learners