Critical Period Hypothesis

How important is the Critical Period in Developing Target Language-Like
Mastery Essay
https://ivypanda.com/essays/how-important-is-the-critical-period-in-developing-target-language-
like-mastery-essay/
The critical period hypothesis stipulates that the capability of an individual to

master a language is confined in the years before puberty. According to
critical period hypothesis, the ability to master a language normally
disappears after puberty due to maturation of the brain. Critical period
hypothesis was proposed by Penfield, Roberts and Lenneberg in the 1950s
and 60s (Han, 2004). These scholars developed their hypothesis based on
various types of evidence.
One of the evidence used by these scholars was that of abused and feral
children, who developed to maturity without learning human languages
during their childhood. The second evidence used was that of deaf children
who stopped acquiring spoken language after adolescence. The fact that
children suffering from aphasia showed better recovery than adults was also
used as evidence by these scholars (Han, 2004).
Critical period hypothesis has continued to be one of the fiercely contested

issues in cognitive science, and more specifically psycholinguistics. The
available literature on CPH provides different views on the characteristics of
this phenomenon. One of the divergent views on CPH questions the
existence of the most favorable, sensitive, or a critical period of language
acquisition.
The origin of CPH has also attracted different views, and the debate has
been on whether CPH is brought by cognitive or maturational factors (Gass
&, Selinker, 2001). However, modern literature has acknowledged that CPH
plays an important role in the acquisition of first language. There is sufficient
evidence that if humans do not acquire a language in early stages of
development, they normally lose the capability of mastering languages. This
particularly affects the grammatical aspects (Gass &, Selinker, 2001).
The evidence that supports CPH is scarce, but its proponents normally use
analogies and theoretical reasoning like development of vision to support
their claims. The time limit of CPH has also generated different views among
scholars (Fuchs, 2007).
Linguists who refute the idea of CPH argue that the concept of CPH can be
easily falsified. Opponents of CPH maintain that there are individuals who
have been exposed to a first or second language after puberty (critical
period), and have developed native-like competency. Many researches, for
example, those conducted by White and Genesee (1996), Bialystok (1997),
and Birdsong and Molis (2001), have refuted the idea of CPH (Birdsong,
2009).
The study by White and Genesee examined eighty nine individuals who
spoke English as their second language. These subjects were evaluated
based on vocabulary choice, morphosyntax, fluency and the extent to which
their language skills resembled those of native speakers. The data collected
were then used to determine whether a relationship existed between the
ages at which an individual is first exposed to a language, and the level of
language mastery (Birdsong, 2009).
The findings of this study provided these researchers with sufficient

evidence to enable them refute the claims of CPH. Several participants in
this study achieved almost native-like mastery of the English language,
despite the fact that they were exposed to the language after the critical
period. In addition, the study also demonstrated that participants’
performance in grammatical judgment, in terms of speed, accuracy and
writing, was similar to that of native speakers (Jedynak, 2009).
However, opponents of CPH do not totally refute the fact that individuals
who are taught a language when they are young, are likely to be more
competent than those taught in their adulthood. According to White and
Genesee, adults who achieved native-like mastery of the English language
in the study were a proof that both adults and children possess similar
language learning mechanisms. This contravenes the popular notion in CPH
that after puberty (critical period), native mastery of a language is impossible
(Jedynak, 2009).
Linguistic scholars have generally agreed that CPH starts in infancy and
ends at puberty, and the chances of it occurring after puberty are slim. This
conception is also supported by the general societal notion that children do
posses certain inborn advantages when it comes to mastering languages.
Scholars have provided varying definitions of CPH based on whether the
language being acquired is a first or a second language (Schouten, 2009).
But the common assumption is that after puberty an individual can never
develop native-like competency, especially in intonation and pronunciation.
This assumption is based on the fact that when children become older,
cognitive changes takes place in their brains that makes it very difficult for
instinctive mastering of a language.
Magnetic imaging techniques used in modern researches have also shown

that children process their language differently from adolescents. This
finding is based on the region activated in the brain during language
development in children (Schouten, 2009).
The influence CPH has on acquisition of a second language is a subject that

has attracted different opinions in research dealing with second language.
Those who claim that CPH does not play a role in the acquisition of a
second language, have cited evidence that adults can develop native-like
competency in a second language.
Proponents of CPH in mastering a second language have maintained that
native mastery of a second language can only develop in young learners.
This implies that critical period and maturational restrain also affect the
acquisition of a second language. Recent studies focusing on the role of
CPH in the acquisition of a second language have concentrated on the
assumption that biological basis for the critical period does exist (Schouten,
2009).
One of the most significant studies on the role of CPH in the acquisition of a
second language was that conducted by Johnson and Newport. In this
research, forty six adult immigrants from Korea and China, who had arrived
in the US at different ages, were studied. The subjects were then evaluated
on morphosyntactic rules like past tense, making plurals, motion in particles,
and order of words.
The findings of this research demonstrated that a strong correlation existed

between the scores in the tests, and the age at which the participants arrived
in the US. From these result, Johnson and Newport made a conclusion that
a critical period for the acquisition of a second language does exist.
However, recent researchers have refuted these findings by arguing that the
evidence generated does not show diminishing relationship between age of
exposure, and competency in the second language (Du, 2010).
CPH can hinder someone from developing target language mastery. This
view is especially true from a nativist approach. Adult second language
learners can acquire morphosyntactic competencies such as past tense,
making plurals, motion in particles, and order of words. However, they can
never achieve native-like intonation and accent (Du, 2010).
Conclusion
The influence CPH has on the acquisition of a first or second language is an
issue that has attracted varied opinions among linguistic scholars.
Proponents of CPH argue that CPH plays a critical role in the acquisition of
both first and second languages, and children do posses special innate
cognitive abilities in learning languages. On the contrary, opponents of CPH
argue that both adults and children posses similar abilities when it comes to
mastery of languages.
References
Birdsong, D. (2009). Second language acquisition and the critical period
hypothesis: [August 1996… symposium entitled “New Perspectives on the
Critical Period for Second Language Acquisition”]. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Du, L. (2010). Assess the critical period hypothesis in second language

acquisition. English Language Teaching, 3(2): 219-223.
Fuchs, A. (2007). The critical period hypothesis supported by Genie’s case.

Munchen: Grin Verlag.
Gass, S. M., & Selinker, L. (2001). Second language acquisition: An

introductory course. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Han, Z. (2004). Fossilization in adult second language acquisition. Clevedon:

Multilingual Matters.
Jedynak, M. (2009). Critical period hypothesis revisited: The impact of age

on ultimate attainment in the pronunciation of a foreign language. Berlin
Bern Bruxelles New York, NY: Lang.
Schouten, A. (2009). The critical period hypothesis: Support, challenge, and

reconceptualization. Working Papers in TESOL & Applied Linguistics, 9(1):
1-16.

Critical Period Hypothesis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Critical Period Hypothesis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Critical Period Hypothesis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

How important is the Critical Period in Developing Target Language-Like

The critical period hypothesis stipulates that the capability of an individual to

Critical period hypothesis has continued to be one of the fiercely contested

The findings of this study provided these researchers with sufficient

Magnetic imaging techniques used in modern researches have also shown

The influence CPH has on acquisition of a second language is a subject that

The findings of this research demonstrated that a strong correlation existed

Du, L. (2010). Assess the critical period hypothesis in second language

Fuchs, A. (2007). The critical period hypothesis supported by Genie’s case.

Gass, S. M., & Selinker, L. (2001). Second language acquisition: An

Han, Z. (2004). Fossilization in adult second language acquisition. Clevedon:

Jedynak, M. (2009). Critical period hypothesis revisited: The impact of age

Schouten, A. (2009). The critical period hypothesis: Support, challenge, and

You might also like