The Non Primary Mother Tongue

Published Date: 02 Nov 2017

A considerable amount of literature has been focused upon the age related critical period hypothesis of L2 acquisition. This hypothesis proposes that there is a biologically determined phase in which language attempts to reach native-like proficiency becomes considerably difficult. Despite the common ideology that the critical period does not extend beyond the adolescent phase, the actual offset of this period has been greatly discussed with an array of ages being suggested. The common assertion is that of Lenneberg (1967) claiming that lateralization of language acquisition has been reached. Likewise, Salthouse (1992) too identified cognitive changes. The age-related changes in cognitive processing, for example, poorer working memory, prove a hindrance to older learners of a new language, in comparison to younger learners. With the likes of researchers Hakuta, Bialystok & Wiley (2003) they further studied the CPH. The study focused on the effect of age of acquisitioning in L2 proficiency and involved a large number of immigrants with varying ages of initial exposure to the English language. Results showed the absence in language discontinuity the older the age of the subject; opposing the critical period phenomenon.

Furthermore, when other studies tested the idea of the existence of a critical period, various factors were to be accounted for. Flege et al (1995) took an advanced approach and studied the emergence of foreign accents in L2 acquisition and also the latest age in which the learned foreign language reached an accent-free pronunciation. Their results as supported by Long (1990) found L2 foreign accents were present from childhood. Flege�s research further dictated this idea when it was found no subjects past the age of fifteen years old passed as being native-like. Nonetheless, this study also highlighted other factors in which the perceived degree of foreign accent would be effected, for instance, gender, length of residence and the subjects use of both the foreign and native language. Whilst the significance of a critical period has already been underlined; expanding upon the other factors effecting L2 acquisition, a different approach took place investigating late learners as opposed to children. According to McDonald (2006), poor grammatical judgement has been identified in late learners, as a result of tasks involving the role for decoding and working memory abilities. What is highlighted upon this study is that as well as age, various added stressors too decreases the grammatical judgement in the tasks presented. Poor performance is not specifically related to poor grammatical knowledge, but rather the difficulties in processing. Consequently, the issue that needs to be tackled is whether in late learners, the processing of grammatical judgement are a general problem or if they are specific to a particular language area.

Despite the arrays of research papers implying the existence of a critical period, Oyama (1976) proposed an alternative �sensitive period�. The �sensitive period�, suggests the brain undergoes a period of heightened sensitivity in which it becomes more prone to specific kinds of stimulus. As a result, the brain responds to such stimulus with greater effect than it would normally. Therefore, in relation to L2 acquisition, adults are able to reach a native-like level in learning a new language, provided they learn to speak like a native. Such learning would require adults to extend beyond initial learning and use their already attained skills. Regardless of this, Oyama explained that for adults to become native-like in second language was unlikely. The study found no evidence for late arriving subjects who scored native-like ratings, nor was found for early arrivals. Nonetheless, the study is limited in such that language usage was not accounted for. Thus, this presents an argument that that subjects used may have only been exposed to the second language for a short period.

In contrast to the critical period hypothesis, research conducted did not support the maturational view, considering post maturational age effects were found in the studies conducted. The various researches direct attention to the particular pairings of the first-second language, with results not being generalisable to all language pairings. Moreover, Bialystok & Miller (1999) studied native speakers of Spanish and Chinese and their acquisition of English as a second language. Despite studies having demonstrated Chinese as being the most distinctly different to the English language, Bialystok & Miller, did not predict biological constraints upon learning English. The age of arrivals was negatively correlated with age and performance in the study, but evidence of a critical period was not supported.

Other researchers clearly revoked any sense of a critical period with the acquisition of a second language. Through studies, it became apparent that in the older learners tested, they were competent of being like a native speakers. In addition, qualitative changes in learning outcomes at the suggested critical period were rejected by the behavioural evidence found. An example of such research against the critical period hypothesis was found by Birdsong & Molis (2001). In their study, they focused upon post-maturational age effects and thus found there was a proportion that were able to obtain the fluency of native speakers in a second language; thus, it can be implied proficiency continues to decline beyond a critical period. Nonetheless, one must consider the alternative non-biological factors which may support the progression of adults to become native-like speakers. Perhaps fluent L2 acquisition in influenced by social and educational factors. Such social and educational factors direct attention towards the significance of the amount of formal education taught of the second language, but also the age of arrival into the second language country, which all seem to play a role in the language outcome.

Among those researchers who have disproved the CPH and instead placed emphasis on research into the environmental factors rather than biological ones are Jia & Fuse (2007). Their experiment aimed to predict the effects of how age of arrival, age related changes and the external environment the language was spoken would correlate with performance between various language grammars, such as, tenses, non-tense related morphemes and irregular morphemes. The five year longitudinal study primarily demonstrates that environmental factors play a major role upon age-related differences between those tested and consequently disprove the CPH being innately related to age. Moreover, Friederici et al (2007) directed attention towards proficiency rather that age of arrival in determining language processing for a new language learnt. In order to test this idea, adults were trained to learn an artificial language through a computer set paradigm. For this hypothesis to prove liable, a high level of proficiency was to be shown. Brain signatures of the artificial language learnt needed to show the similarity between L1 and L2 brain mechanisms in the late learner subjects, thus contradicting the CPH.

Further research investigated whether late learners were able to achieve native-like pronunciation in a newly learnt foreign language (Bongaerts et al, 1997). A prominent lead of this research is that the participants were consistently exposed to native speakers of the language to be learnt. This is perhaps a key affect in determining how well one pronounces the foreign language during the learning process. It was concluded that it was not impossible for subjects to achieve native-like L2 pronunciation after a specified time, disregarding the CPH. On the other hand, the study implies that it is the individual characteristics of learners, such as, educational learning input which influences the success of learners even at a later stage. Additionally, confidence as a factor implies children are typically less inhibited compared to adults when practicing a foreign language. Adults deem to reach is good level of spoken, read or written foreign language before adapting this to real life situations with native speakers. Children seem to be much more prepared to interact with others even when not fully fluent in a foreign language.

So far the controversial CPH has been discussed; with increasing evidence suggesting late learners are able to obtain native-like fluency in learners beyond the critical period. It has already been pointed out that social and educational factors or in other words the non-biological aspects contribute to ones L2 outcome. The language field relates a great deal to how the language is taught; whether it is in school, via a program or at home so to speak. However, when focusing on the environment where one learns a foreign language, it becomes evident that learning a language in school differs greatly to the language being learnt and practiced in an open environment, where aspects as referred to earlier, like pronunciation can be more easily accounted for. In general it is assumed that children are able to learn languages at greater ease in comparison to adults. On the one hand, with studies conducted related to age, it appears that a major factor is at what period an individual moved to the new language environment. For that reason, disregarding factors such as a child�s parents� socio-economic status or how long one has been in the country or even how much the foreign language is spoken in an everyday environment; the age of arrival tends to be crucial in determining how native-like one acquires a L2. Nonetheless, this divisive topic has also shown that perhaps the high degree of language learning aptitude of late learners (Abrahamsson & Hyltenstam, 2008), in addition to skills such as, problem solving strategies, may compensate considerably for the naturalistic language learning that children experience. When investigating early and late L2 learners, Abrahamsson & Hyltenstam (2008) found evidences which supported that late L2 learners, in general, had an above average aptitude. Additionally, when under linguistic scrutiny, late learners were found to be not as native-like as thought to be earlier in the study, in contrast with early L2 learners were found to have a higher aptitude. The study emphasises that language aptitude playing a crucial role for late learners, however, it too has a certain role for early learners and so endorses reason not to completely eradicate the CPH. Nonetheless, this particular research leads one to question the abilities of less common super language learners and their aptitude in comparison.

Accordingly it leads us to question what exactly plays a key role in late learners acquiring native-like proficiency in an L2, if not related to a critical period. It has come to a point in addressing how the teaching process plays an important role in successful language acquisition (Bialystok & Miller, 1999). One ought to question the language program itself, the quality of teaching and whether or not a teacher is a native speaker themselves. These factors in the learning process all determine how successful the language is learnt. Moreover, in the learning of a second language, the continuity of language program and how one is able to sustain practice in speaking, reading and writing is a significant factor of how native-like the outcome. If the learning program is not sustained, starting and stopping, it becomes difficult to consistently incorporate the various aspects of a language, such as, the grammar and pronunciation, therefore fully articulating a second language becomes impossible regardless of age.

When assessing the implications of studies promoting a critical period, the degree of affinity of the language tested compared to the English language may not have been considered. For instance, languages like Spanish; French and Italian are all similar to the English language, not only genetically but typologically, such as, the grammatical form, endings and prefixes. Languages like Chinese, Korean and Japanese do not follow a phonological approach; the way in which Chinese is written in character form does not reflect how the language is pronounced (Baugh & Thomas, (2002). Moreover, for an individual to reach a certain level of proficiency in one of the languages which entirely diverts from the English language, has meant it takes much longer than that of a similar one.

It has already been established that a critical period is not necessary in order for one to acquire a second language to a specific proficiency level, but the importance of social and educational factors need to be initiated upon teachers and students. It is arguably important that the learner is able to understand the challenges faced when exploring into a foreign language and finding the language engaging. Thus, once these issues have been fully understood, teachers are able to incorporate individual cognitive and learning styles to further aid L2 language to be of a native level. Extending beyond understanding the importance of a language and finding a language engaging, diverts us to looking at the increasing number of heritage learners. Heritage learners are those individuals that over the years have grown up with some kind of second language either in their community or at home (Renganathan, 2008). An example of such would be an individual who may understand what is said to them, but not being able to reply in the same language, or on the contrary being able to speak the second language, but not able to read or write. Focusing of such kinds of late learners, imply there is a necessity to finding specific formalised learning methods to expand on the knowledge already there.

Overall, there has been no overwhelming evidence of a critical period extending into second language acquisition. With an array of research testing late learners� ability to achieve native-like levels of proficiency in a foreign language, it comes to ones attention the major environmental roles interacting to affect L2 acquisition and in turn, in determining a language outcome. Through exploration into language acquisition and the CPH, attention has been directed towards the implications of this field, such as, in early childhood development, but also the practical importance of not being limited by a critical period, so that teaching and learning strategies, programs and an individual�s motivation to learn beyond a stated period is not constricted, but flexible and reflective to a learner�s needs. Nonetheless, the second language acquisition process still remains a controversial and complex one, with the need of a range of factors to be intermingled to affect how successful ones second language acquisition really is.