The Role of Age of Language Acquisition A. Children’s Language Acquisition It is argued that second language acquisition is learned among children in two ways, simultaneously or sequentially as demonstrated by Halgunseth (2009) as she cites Tabors (2008). Young children acquire L1 and L2 languages what it seems to be almost without any effort through a process that is called simultaneous second language learning. According to her, simultaneous learners are children under the age of three who are exposed to their mother tongue at home and another language in an early educational context such as kindergarten or other early program. However, those learners can also be children from a multi-language home where the child is exposed to two different languages at home, for example Spanish from mom and English from dad (Halgunseth, 2009, as cited by Tabors, 2008). She points out that although being exposed to two different languages at home, children learn both languages the same way without favouring one or the other. As their brain mechanism allows them to learn more than one language, they construct two separate language systems in their brains for each language. Similarly, this language system is almost identical to the process that children develop through exposure to one language (Halgunseth, 2009). When the child reaches the age of 6 months, they are able to distinguish between the two languages and at this point they may begin to favour one language over the other. If parents expose their child to one language more than the other, the child might focus more on the language that it receives more exposure from (Espinosa, 2008; Kuhl, 2004; Kuhl et al., 2006; abors, 2008).
1
In sequential language learning environment, the child speaks its native language but is also exposed or introduced to a second language. For example, when a Spanish speaking child attends class where English is the dominant language spoken. Halgunseth states that contrary to simultaneous language learning, sequential learning is not related to any age factor, but it can be stimulated or influenced by elements like motivation. There are four stages of sequential second language learning according to her, which are the following: Stage 1: Home Language Use: Children might refuse to use their native language even though others do not understand them. Stage 2: Silent Period: Children can hardly speak but rely on nonverbal communication. It is argued that the younger the child is, the longer the silent period might last. Stage 3: Telegraphic and Formulaic Speech: At this stage children will start to speak in the target language but only using short phrases or repeat the words of others. Stage 4: Productive Language, children construct their own sentences. Those sentences might be very basic and incorrect but with time it will improve (Helgunseth, 2009). Although children are exposed to two languages at the same time at an early age, it does not have to mean that they confuse the languages easily. As mentioned, children become bilingual sometimes when one parent converses in one language while the other converses in the second language. Additionally, parents might
2
converse to each other in both languages so children are exposed to both languages. However, being bilingual has its downside also (Helgunseth 2009). B. Age and Second Language Acquisition The second language acquisition competences among adults seem to differ significantly from the way children acquire their first language. This has led researcherson the path of investigating the development of the Critical Period Hypothesis (CPH). Originally CPH was introduced by Penfield and Roberts in 1959 and was later made popular and discussed further by Lenneberg in 1967. Brown (2007) refers to this hypothesis (CPH) as “a biologically determined period of life when language can be acquired more easily and beyond which time language is increasingly difficult to acquire” (p. 57). According to him, “Critical point for second language acquisition occurs around puberty, beyond which people seem to be relatively incapable of acquiring a second language”(p. 58). Also, this has led to confusion among many who took it for granted that once you reach a certain age level (12-13) you would be considered too late for successful second language acquisition (Brown 2002).It is important to investigate if L2 learning capacity declines over a period. There are rather few studies that thoroughly investigate SLA achievement between old and young language learners. David Singleton (2004) cites Seright (1985), who points out that only few studies that deal with success and age-related issues between young and old learners, show that the younger learners perform better than adult L2 learners. Furthermore, right supports her claims by citing an experiment on the learning of Esperanto that was conducted by Thorndike in 1928. Singleton says that this study
3
shows young learners performing better than the old ones. In addition, she also cites d’Anglejan et al.’s study from 1981 of Canadian immigrants who were learning French in an intensive language course which also shows how young learners gained more success than older learners, or in other words, less success with age (Singleton 2004). On the other hand, there is evidence that favours the hypothesis that “the older the better” in terms of second language acquisition. However, Singleton points out that all of those investigations were the result of formal instruction. In other words, these investigations are short-term research and based on SLA in primary school classroom and L2 bilingual programs. Also, he does mention that the results of some immigrant studies indicate an advantage for older learners. Most of the relevant studies that Singleton mentions involve children as at least one element of comparison. Hence, there are few studies that incorporate teenagers and adults of different ages and that show evidence that older learners perform better than those who are older. Singleton shows that some immigrant studies suggest that L2 learning improves with age, as he cites and refers to a study from 1974 that Ervin-Tripp conducted of 31 young English speaking children who had been exposed to French for a period that spanned nine months. The results of Ervin-Tripp’s research showed that the older students outperformed the younger learners in every field of the learning process (Singleton 2004). Since the early 1990s, studies have shown positive results of older beginners that achieve high level of L2 proficiency. Singleton explains how White and Genesee (1996) hardly found any differences between English Grammatically test scores
4
among native-like French speakers who begun learning English after the age of twelve and those attained by native-speakers in language control groups. Moreover, Singleton talks about an investigation conducted by Bongaerts et al. (1995) about Dutch learners that were beginning to learn English in a classroom environment after the age of twelve. This research demonstrated that classroom learners were able to gain English pronunciation ratings within the same range as native-speakers (Singleton 2004). Interestingly, this shows that even though L2 acquisition began at the age of 12 and in classroom instruction setting, those learners could nevertheless attain a native-like accent. As previously stated, there are evidence that favor “the younger the better” and also studies indicating that older students can exceed younger learners. In addition, there is another hypothesis that indicates that younger learners are extremely efficient in acquiring native-like accent in second language. It has to be taken into account that for this to happen, it is important that the exposure to the target language is sufficient. Moreover, this is confirmed by Singleton (2004:84) as he states “the strong version of this position being that unless exposure to the L2 begins in the childhood years an authentic accent will not normally be acquired”. It is also important to discuss if it is better over the long run to start learning L2 at an early age. Krashen et al. (1979) explore this subject further and show the short-term and long-term results in L2 acquisition. They claim that: 1) Adults proceed through early stages of syntactic and morphological development faster than children (where time and exposure are held constant).
5
2) Older children acquire faster than younger children (again, in early stages of syntactic and morphological development where time and exposure are held constant). 3) Acquirers who begin natural exposure to second languages during childhood generally achieve higher second language proficiency than those beginning as adults. (p.161). There seems to be no clear evidence that can without a doubt conclude that children learning an L2 will outperform older language learners in the long run. Singleton’s conclusion and summary regarding this matter is that it is not possible to conclude, based on current studies that younger l2 learners are more efficient and successful language learners than the older ones (Singleton 2004). On the other hand, Singleton does mention that there is extremely reliable evidence to support the hypothesis that over the long run, those who begin learning an L2 in childhood generally gain higher level of proficiency than those who begin at later stages in life (Singleton 2004). However, the studies that contradict this hypothesis are those made in a classroom environment. Therefore, it is hard to compare classroom instruction over the long run and natural L2 acquisition that does not take place inside a classroom. C. Does age really matter in SLA? The question when is the best age for Second language acquisition seems to be connected with the amount input or exposure to the target language. Scholars are still struggling to understand sufficiently what effect age has on the language learner when the exposure to the target language is not enough. Munoz (2010) argues that the
6
amount and the quality of the language input is extremely important to young learners at the early stages of second language learning. She presents results that compare younger and older language learners and declares that young learners consistently show better language results than those who start SLA later on in life as adults. Similarly, she declares that those results provide positive support for the Critical Period Hypothesis (CPH) and indicate what has been discussed earlier about the existence of certain age period and incomplete language acquisition. Discussing this further, this strong evidence supporting the claim that children benefit much more by participating in the cultural environment, where they are naturally exposed to the language input rather than starting at an early age in classroom environment, show that children are exposed to more quality of natural input of the target language (Munoz, 2010, p. 40-41). This suggest that exposure is more important than the age factor when comes to SLA. According to Larson-Hall (2008), most studies on the critical period seem to favor the theory that “the younger, the better”. However those studies have been conducted when learners were active participants and culturally involved in the target country. The participants were actively exposed to the target language on daily basis and received great amount of exposure to the target language outside of the classroom. Researchers agree on the importance of the amount of exposure regarding the critical age of SLA because there is no guarantee of “the younger the better” when the exposure is minimal. As discussed by Larson-Hall, children and adults learn language through different strategies and have different learning abilities. She talks about how
7
young learners learn in an implicit way, which makes minimal exposure to the target language not enough to form morphological, syntactic or phonological system. This statement is confirmed when older results are analyzed and show that there is no linguistic advantage of SLA, having in mind “the younger the better” when the exposure is minimal (Larson-Hall 2008). One of those earlier studies from 1974, conducted by Oller and Nagato and later cited by Larson-Hall involve Japanese elementary school students who were starting to learn English (1-2 hours per week) and they compared them with older students who were beginning their SLA in junior high. Statistical differences were diagnosed within the younger learners but not within the older and the conclusion was that the advantages of the younger learners were not present anymore. Oller & Nagato’s argument for this particular reason show no differences within the older group and results were purely statistical because the older students had 50 students and the younger group had 24 which demonstrate that if effects sizes are small, the results from statistics can disappear (Tversky and Kahneman 1971). However, more recent investigations regarding “the earlier, the better” are still debatable and the focal point has led scholars to investigate further the language exposure and motivational factors. Larson-Hall’s investigation from 2008 suggests that young learners have more positive attitude towards studying a foreign language (Larson-Hall, 2008:24). In conclusion, the study made by her focused on if there was any correlation between starting early and high scores in environment that provided minimal input of exposure to the second language as the debate has often been about how age plays a significant role in a natural or immersion environments. According to her, this is not always true
8
as she argues that “age does seem to play a non-negligible role in improving second language acquisition, given that language learners receive enough input“. Moreover, the reality is that age can play a role in improving second language acquisition, but it is important to provide students with enough exposure to the target language during their learning process.
References
9
Alderson J.C. (1999). Exploding myths: Does the number of hours per week matter? Paper presented at the 9th IATEFL-Hungary Conference in Györ. [online]. Retrieved from http://www.examsreform.hu/Media/konyvPart2/Chapter %2017.pdf Bialystok, E. (2001). Bilingualism in development: Language, literacy, and cognition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Bongaerts, T., Planken, B., & Schils, E. (1995). Can late starters attain a native accent in foreign language: A test of the Critical Period Hypothesis. In D. Singleton and Z. Lengyel (eds) The Age Factor in Second Language Acquisition. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Brown, H. D. (2002). Principles of language learning and teaching. White Plains, NY: Longman. Brown, H. D. (2007). Principles of language learning and teaching. White Plains, NY: Pearson. Cameron, L. (2001). Teaching languages to young learners. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. D'Anglejan, A., Renaud, C., Arseneault, R. H., & Lortie, A. M. (1981). Difficultés dapprentissage de la langue seconde chez limmigrant adulte en situation scolaire [Second language learning difficulties in adult immigrants in a school situation. Quebec: Centre international de recherche sur le bilinguisme, University of Laval Press. Cited in L. Seright (1985) Age and aural comprehension achievement in Francophone adults learning English. TESOL Quarterly 19, 455–73. Djigunovic, J. M. (2012). Attitudes and Motivation in Early Foreign Language Learning. Centre for Educational Policy Studies Journal, 2(3), 55-74. Retrieved from www.cepsj.si/pdfs/cepsj_2_3/cepsj_2_3_pp55_mihaljevic djigunovic.pdf SLA, MOTIVATION AND THE AGE FACTOR 27 Dörnyei, Z. (2001). Teaching and researching motivation. Harlow, England: Longman. Dörnyei, Z. (1994). Motivation and motivating in the foreign language classroom. Modern Language Journal, 78(3), 273-284. Retrieved http://mailer.fsu.edu/~jkeller/EDP5217/Library/Curiosity%20&
10
from
%20Attention/Attention/Dornyei(1994)%20Foreign%20Language %20Classroom.pdf Engin, A. O. (2009). Second language learning success and motivation. Social Behaviour and Personality, 37(8), 1035-1045. Retrieved from https://www.google.com/url? sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CDQQFjAA&url=http %3A%2F%2Fweb.hanu.vn%2Fdec%2Ffile.php%2F1%2Fmoddata%2Fforum %2F125%2F1485%2FSECOND_LANGUAGE_LEARNING_SUCCESS_A ND.pdf&ei=74d_Uc2WBcnj2AXp4YCwDw&usg=AFQjCNHEl6zGFXOnGT -1j0SUF-0cZ9MJZQ&bvm=bv.45645796,d.b2I Ervin-Tripp, S. M. (1974). Is second language learning like the first? Tesol Quarterly, 8(2), 111-27. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3585535? uid=3738664&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21101966244933 Espinosa, L. M. (2008). Challenging common myths about young English language learners. Foundation for Child Development. Retrieved from http://fcd-us.org Foreign Language. (2013). In The Collins Dictionary. Retrieved from http://www.collinsdictionary.com Gardner, R. C., & Lambert, W. E. (1972). Attitudes and motivation in secondlanguage learning. Rowley, Mass: Newbury House Publishers. Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The role of attitudes and motivation. London: E. Arnold. Gardner, R. C. (2000). Correlation, causation, motivation and second language acquisition. Canadian Psychology, 41, 1-24. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download? doi=10.1.1.136.9968&rep=rep1&type=pdf Gardner, R. C. (2007). Motivation and second language acquisition. Porta Linguarum, SLA, MOTIVATION AND THE AGE FACTOR 288, 9-20. Retrieved from http://www.ugr.es/~portalin/articulos/PL_numero8/1-R%20C %20%20GADNER.pdf Genesee, F. (2008). Bilingual first language acquisition: Evidence from Montreal. Diversité Urbain, 9-26. Retrieved from http://www.psych.mcgill.ca/perpg/fac/genesee/6.pdf
11
Halgunseth, L. C. (2009). How children learn a second language. In A. Umaña-Taylor, Classroom Diversity and Academic Success, an Online Special Edition. Retrieved from http://www.education.com/reference/article/how-childrenlearn-second-language/ Halliwell, S. (1992). Teaching English in the primary classroom. London: Longman. Haynes, J. (2007). Getting started with English language learners: How educators can meet the challenge. Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Kissau, S. (2006). Gender differences in second language motivation: An investigation of micro- and macro-level influences. Canadian Journal of Applied Lingustics, 9(1), 73-96. Retrieved from http://www.aclacaal.org/Revue/vol-9-no1-art-kissau.pdf Krashen S., Long, M. and Scarcella, R. (1979) Age, rate and eventual attainment in second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly 13, 573–82 Reprinted in S. Krashen, R., Scarcella and M. Long (eds) (1982) Child-Adult Differences in Second Language Acquisition, Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Krashen, S. D., & Terrell, T. D. (1983). The Natural approach: Language acquisition in the classroom. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Kuhl, P. K. (2004). Early language acquisition: Cracking the speech code. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 5(11), 831-843. Retrieved from http://www.nature.com/nrn/journal/v5/n11/full/nrn1533.html Kuhl, P. K., Stevens, E., Hayashi, A., Deguchi, T., Kiritani, S., & Iverson, P. (2006). SLA, MOTIVATION AND THE AGE FACTOR 29 Infants show a facilitation effect for native language phonetic perception between 6 and 12 months. Developmental Science, 9 (2), pp. F13-F21. Larson-Hall, J. (2008). Weighing the benefits of studying a foreign language at a younger starting age in a minimal input situation. Second Language Research, 24(1), 35-63. Retrieved from ttp://peer.ccsd.cnrs.fr/docs/00/57/07/38/PDF/PEER_stage2_10.1177%252F02 67658307082981.pdf Munoz C. (2006). The effects of age on foreign language learning: The BAF Project. In C. Munoz (ed.),Age and the rate of foreign language learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 1-40.
12
Munoz, C. (2010). On how age affects foreign language learning. Advances in Research on Language Acquisition and Teaching, 39-49. Retrieved from http://www.enl.auth.gr/gala/14th/Papers/Invited%20Speakers/Munoz.pdf Nikolov, M., & Djigunovic, J. M. (2006). Recent research on age, second language acquisition and early foreign language learning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 26, 234-260. Retrieved from http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract? fromPage=online&aid=530504 Oller, J. W., & Nagato, N. (1974). The long-term effect of FLES: an experiment. Modern Language Journal, 58, 15-19. Retrieved from http://www.enl.auth.gr/gala/14th/Papers/Invited%20Speakers/Munoz.pdf Pandey, V. C. (2005). Intelligence and motivation. Delhi: Isha Books. Second Language. (2013). In The Collins Dictionary. Retrieved from http://www.collinsdictionary.com Seright, L. (1985). Age and aural comprehension achievement in francophone adults learning English. Tesol Quarterly, 19(3), 455-473. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2307/3586273/abstract SLA, MOTIVATION AND THE AGE FACTOR Shirbagi, N. (2010). An exploration of undergraduate student’s motivation and attitudes towards English language acquisition. Journal of Behavioural Sciences, 20(2), 1-15. Retrieved from http://pu.edu.pk/images/journal/doap/PDFILES/1%20Englisj%20language %20learning_V20_No1_10.pdf Singleton, D. M., & Ryan, L. (2004). Language acquisition: The age factor. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Tabors, P. O. (2008). One child, two languages: A guide for early childhood educators of children learning English as a second language. Baltimore, Md: Paul H. Brookes Pub. Co. Thorndike, E. L. (1928). Thorndike. New York, NY: Macmillan. Torfadóttir, A., Ragnarsdóttir, B. A., & Lefever, S. (n.d.). Enskukunnátta barna í 4. og 5. bekk grunnskólans: Hvað kunna þau?. Reykjavík: Rannsóknarstofnun Kennaraháskóla Íslands.
13
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1971). Belief in the law of small numbers. Psychological Bulletin, 76, 105-10. Retrieved from http://www.isites.harvard.edu White, L., & Genesee, F. (1996). How native is near-native? The issue of ultimate attainment in adult second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 12(3), 238-65. Retrieved from http://slr.sagepub.com/content/12/3/233.full.pdf+html
14
