second version of my PWP

Universidad del Valle

Licenciatura en Lenguas Extranjeras

Composición escrita en Inglés VII

Profesora:  Sol colmenares

Estudiante: Leidy Yareth Martínez López

Critical review of the introduction of “CRITICAL PERIOD IN SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION”

I would like to set first the topic I am going to talk about; it is the theory of critical period in learning a second language. I chose this topic because I believe this is vastly but not completely developed issue in learning a second language and it could generate some ideas about how to improve learning a new language in adults and how different could it be from learning in childhood. I found that some experts have made lots of research about the critical period but they argued that this period could end at different ages. I will mention those experts and the time in life they believe the critical period concludes later.

In my text I have selected just the introduction of a study made in the United States by Kenji Hakuta, Ellen Bialystok and Edward Wiley. I decided to analyze only the introduction because this presents for me the base of the research.

This critical review is addressed basically to people who are interested on knowing more about learning processes or learning styles. However, the topic could be interesting for the whole educative community of Second Language Learning and Teaching.

The main purpose of this review is to show the perspective of the mentioned authors about the critical period and my point of view in front of the ideas they present. Besides, I would like to know more about the critical period hypothesis because it can help me understanding my future students’ needs according to their age or cognitive development.

The authors argue the idea that there is a biologically-based critical period for second-language acquisition has appealed to both theorists and social policymakers. That is, language policy has been developed according to this kind of hypothesis and theorists have been looking for a definite answer to this phenomenon.  They also refer to the field in which that hypothesis appeared firstly, it was in neurolinguistic literature by Penfield and Roberts (1959), they speculated that the lack of recoveries from traumas and damages in the brain because of the maturity could go on until second language acquisition.

In this research Hakuta, Bialystok and Wiley expressed that the results of the test they applied demonstrated that proficiency scores declined with increases in age of initial exposure to the second language. Nevertheless, they did not find any specific sign that can lead to the idea that in fact there is a specific age until people can learn or not a new language. I find necessary to say they always talk about acquisition because they have focused on immigrants who are supposed to have acquired the second language instead of have learned it consciously.

These researchers say the claim that there is an age-related decline in the success with which individuals master a second language is not controversial, and they expose two characteristics that must be presented in a critical period: (1) high level of preparedness for learning within a specified developmental period to assure the domain is mastered by the species, and (2) lack of preparedness outside of this period. The second characteristic for the critical period is a theory that involves not only learning a second language but, learning in a general way. In other words that would mean that children or youngers (each theorist has exposed a different limit in age), are more prepared to face a learning process than we adults are.

As I said before, there have been several theorists who tried to develop the critical period hypotheses. Ones of them is Johnson and Newport (1989, 1991) who said that there is a strong age-related decline in proficiency for languages learned prior to puberty (defined as 15 years old) and random variation in achievement among those who are exposed to a second language later in life.  As these scientists, some others have presented a limit of age in which the critical period ends. That is the case of Krashen (1973) who argues that period ends at 5; Pinker (1994) says it is at 6; Lenneberg (1967) says it is at 12 and, as I have already mentioned, Johnson and Newport (1989) say it is at 15. So, my idea by doing this exercise was precisely to show that there is one hypothesis but the issue about the age in which it is supposed the brain has more difficulties to learn is not clear yet.

Besides, and I agree with the authors when they say they realized that within the studied context it is necessary to categorize or have in mind they exist social factors that can easily influence second-language acquisition, the age is one factor but the educative development, language policies within the society and interest or goals sought by the learners are determinant aspects in that process.

Finally, the authors say that they will examine the effect of age of acquisition on second-language proficiency by studying a very large sample of second- language learners who cover a wide range of ages of initial exposure to English. Probably the rate in which Critical period stops is not going to be found at the end of this project because the factor of age and  brain maturity is not  the only factor that counts in learning a new language process. In fact, as I see it, it is just one of the variants that impinge that process and I would not label any of those variants as the most important in that enterprise.