Example: Language Acquisition and the Critical Period

Grace Lee, University of Illinois at Chicago

Introduction

Language acquisition is a complex and somewhat abstract subject. Most people cannot remember a time when they did not know a language, so therefore it is difficult to study the steps in the language learning process. One important aspect of the language acquisition process that has been frequently studied is the age at which a person best acquires either his first or second language. Generally, it is believed that the younger a person is when exposed to a language, the more quickly the person will acquire it.

Many psychologists do believe that there is a limited span of time in which a person is able to acquire language (Bernstein, Stewart, and Wickens, 1997). This span of time is referred to as the critital period for language learning. The critical period spans from early childhood to puberty. It is believed that after the span of the critical period, language acquisition is more slow and incomplete (Bernstein et al., 1997). The concept of the critical period has led to the formation of the critical period hypothesis, which states that there is a critical period in which language is best acquired.

The critical period hypothesis can be tested on both first and second language acquisitions (Ramsey & Wright, 1974). There have been many studies done on this hypothesis and not all the results have been in favor of the existence of a critical period (Snow & Hoefnagel-Hohle, 1978). These studies have shown that second language acquisition is the same regardless of the age of a person. However, many other studies have supported the critical period hypothesis and the general assumption that there is an optimum period to acquire a second language (Ramsey & Wright, 1974). The contrasting results from the testing of the same hypothesis are intriguing. The opposing results can be due to many things. The cause could be experimental errors, differences in the participant pools of each study, or the methods of experimentation in each study. A more important conclusion of this contrast is that the critical period hypothesis itself is false.

Review 1

The study described in the article "The Critical Period for Language acquisition: Evidence from Second Language Learning" was conducted at the University of Amsterdam. This study was conducted in order to compare the rates of learning a first and second language among a wide range of ages. The hypothesis of this study was that if a second language is learned before the age of puberty, or in a critical time span, it will be learned at a rate similar to that when learning a first language (Snow & Hoefnagel-Hohle, 1978).

This study was conducted on English-speaking subjects who had moved to the Netherlands. The subjects were separated into two groups. There was a beginners group, which consisted of subjects who were just starting to learn Dutch. The other group was the advanced group, which consisted of subjects who had been speaking Dutch for several months. As a control, two groups of native Dutch speakers were also used. Each group was distributed over a range of ages. The beginning group consisted of 3-5-year-olds, 6-7-year-olds-, 8-10-year-olds, 12-15-year-olds, and 16+ year-olds. The advanced group consisted of 6-7-year-olds, 8-10-year-olds, 12-15-year-olds and 16+ year-olds. The native speakers consisted of 6-7-year-olds and 12-15-year-olds. Most of the subjects were part of middle class families. The men were exposed to Dutch in the work environment, the women were exposed to Dutch in the shopping centers and social gatherings, and the children were exposed to Dutch at school.

The researchers conducted nine different language tests on each of the subjects. The beginners group was tested three times every 4-5 months, and the advanced group and the native speakers were only tested once. The researchers ran tests on pronunciation, auditory discrimination, morphology, sentence repetition, sentence translation, sentence judgment, the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, story comprehension, and storytelling.

In the pronunciation test, each subject was told to pronounce 80 words. They were told to pronounce them after hearing another person say them and also without a model to follow. The researchers scored the subjects on the basis of how strong an English accent was prevalent. In the auditory discrimination test, similar sounding Dutch words were presented to each subject. The subject was then asked to distinguish the meanings of each word. This test was scored in regards to the ratio of correct responses to auditory confusions.

The morphology test examined the ability of each subject to understand and manipulate the Dutch morphological rules. The subjects were given words and told to change the plurality and/or verb tense. The researchers scored the subjects based on the number of correct responses (Snow & Hoefnagel-Hohle, 1978). In the sentence repetition test, each subject was read 37 Dutch sentences and was told to repeat them. The scores were based on the number of correct words repeated. The sentence translation test consisted of 60 English sentences. The subjects were told to translate each of these sentences into Dutch. The researchers scored each subject based on the correct grammatical structure and word order. In the sentence judgment test, each subject listened to pairs of sentences and was told to distinguish which one was correct and which one was incorrect (Snow & Hoefnagel-Hohle, 1978). Subjects were also given the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test that tested the amount of Dutch vocabulary that each person knew. The scores on this test were based on the number of correct matches between words and pictures (Snow & Hoefnagel-Hohle, 1978). In the story comprehension test, each subject listened to a story in Dutch and was told to translate the story into English. The scores were based opon how many important points were recalled. For the storytelling test, each subject was shown pictures and was told to tell a story in Dutch about the pictures. The researchers scored each subject on the fluency of the storytelling.

The results of these tests were surprising to the researchers because they did not support the critical period hypothesis. For the pronunciation test, the scores of all the age groups were very similar. In the auditory discrimination test, there was an inverse relationship between the number of errors made and the age of the subjects. In the morphology test, the scores increased as the age of the subject increased. The same pattern was found in the sentence repetition test and in the sentence translation test. In the sentence judgment test, the relationship between the age of the subject and the number of errors made was once again inversed. The Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test showed the same pattern of results. In the story comprehension test and the storytelling test, the scores from the first two sessions of the beginners group followed the general trend of an increase in scores with increasing age. However, in the third session of testing, the scores of the 6-7-year-olds increased significantly.

Therefore, the results of this study did not support its hypothesis that the rate that a person learns a second language is inversely related to the age of that person. On the contrary, the results of this study showed that there is a direct relationship between the age of a person and the rate that he acquires a second language. Overall, this study does not support the widely accepted critical period hypothesis.

Review 2

The study described in the article "Age and Second Language Learning" was performed in the city of Toronto in Canada. This study was conducted in order to test the general concordance that a second language is acquired more quickly and efficiently at a younger age. The hypothesis of this paper was that there is a critical period in which a person should be exposed to a second language. (Ramsey & Wright, 1974).

The subjects in this experiment consisted of immigrants who had come to Toronto. The subjects in this studyt did not all come from a common background and language. The subjects came froma myriad of languages and the second language that they were all attempting to acquire was English. The population sample for this study was taken from the classsrooms in grades 5, 7, and 9 in Toronto.

The researchers conducted this study by giving five tests. These tests were picture vocabulary, computational skill, progressive matrices, teacher ratings, and English language skills. The tests that were directly pertaining to language were the picture vocabulary and the English language skills tests. In the picture vocabulary test, the subjects were told to identify the vocabulary word orally. The English language skills test consisted of auditory perception, sound discrimination, sound recognition, intonation, and vocabulary.

The results of this study supported its hypothesis that there is a critical period in learning a second language. When the mean test scores from each grade level were reviewed, it was apparent that there was an inverse relationship between the scores and the age of arrival of each subject. Therefore this study supports the critical period hypothesis in second language learning. It supports the idea that the younger a person is when he is exposed to a second language, the faster and more efficiently he is able to acquire it.

Discussion

For the same exact hypothesis, the studies "The Critical Period for Language Acquisition: Evidence from Second Language Learning" and "Age and Second Language Learning" produced contrasting results. Generally, the critical period hypothesis, which states that there is an optimum language acquisition period, is widely accepted. Studies such as "Age and Second Language Learning" conduct tests and obtain results that support the critical period hypothesis (Ramsey & Wright, 1974). However, in studies such as "The Critical Period for Language Acquisition: Evidence from Second Language Learning," the results obtained do not support the critical period hypothesis.

The language tests used in both of these studies were similar. Therefore, it is difficult to blame the differences in results upon the methods of experimentation. However, some possible confounding variables may have been the descriptions of the subjects. The Canadian study consisted of Subjects from a variety of different languages (Ramsey & Wright, 1974). However, in the Dutch study, all of the subjects came from an English-speaking background (Snow & Hoefnagel-Hohle, 1978). This homogenous sample may have caused this study to reject the critical period hypothesis and decrease its generalizability. Another possible factor that may have accounted for the contrasting results is the amount of tests that each subject group took. In the Dutch group, the subjects were given the test three times. The study done in Toronto only tested the subjects once. This increases the probability of statistical regression in which a subject's score may have been uncharacteristically extreme and therefore not a clear representation of the subject's true ability.

Conclusions

Through my own experience, I support the critical period hypothesis. I agree with the results of the Canadian study that there is an optimum arrival age in learning a second language. Observing the rate at which my relatives from Korea acquire English strengthens my support of the critical period hypothesis. The difference in learning between my young cousins of ages between 5 and 12 and their middle-age parents is immense. The children grow up and learn their second language to the point where an accent is no longer evident. However, the adults who continue to live in the United States for 15 to 20 years still speak with a thick accent and limited vocabulary. This may not be the case at all times, as seen in the Dutch experiment, but by my own personal experience, the critical period hypothesis seems to be accurate.

References

Bernstein, D.A., Clarke-Stewart, A., Roy, E.J. & Wickens, C.D. (1997). Psychology. (4th ed.) New York: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Ramsey, C.A., & Wright, E.N. (1974). Age and second language learning. The Journal of Social Psychology, 94, 115-121.
Snow, C.E., & Hoefnagel-Hohle, M. (1978). The critical period for language acquisition: Evidence from second language learning. Child Development, 49, 1114-1128.