International Research Journal of Humanities, Language and Literature Vol. 4, Issue 5, May 2017 Impact Factor- 5.401
ISSN: (2394-1642)
© Associated Asia Research Foundation (AARF) Publication
Website: www.aarf.asiaEmail : [email protected] , [email protected]
THE INFLUENCE OF AGE IN L2 ACQUISITION: AN ANALYSIS
Md. Sumon Ahmed1, ARM Mahbuber Rahman1
¹Department of English, KhwajaYunus Ali University, Sirajgonj-6751, Bangladesh.
ABSTRACT
To learn languages successfully whether it is first language or second languageage has been
considered as an important factor. Learners’ successfully second language (L2) acquisition is
resoluted by the age.In Critical Period Hypothesisit is revealed that language learners can
acquire foreign language better than adults. Many scholars belief that young children are better
at second language acquisition (SLA) than the older. Many scholars think that the older is
faster, but the young is better. Many experiments were conducted to reveal the influence of age
to the rate and ultimate achievement of L2 learning, yet controversial results were located. The
focus of this paper is to examine whether young learners learn second language better than the
older.The author proposed that more contributions are needed to provide additional evidence to
explore this issue.
Keywords:Age,First language acquisition, Second language acquisition, critical period
hypothesis
Introduction
Second Language Acquisition (L2) is the process of learning any language after the first
language. L2 acquisition is a very complex process.It requiresseveral factors. Among some of the
factors,agewhich has an effect on second language learning greatly influence this process. It is
factors in L2 learning. It is commonly believedthat younger language learners are more
successful than the older because they (younger) have certain advantages over older learners in
language learning. The common hypothesis is that younger children learn L2 easily and quickly
in comparison to older children (Ellis, 1986). The Critical Period Hypothesis (CPH) found that
there isconnectionbetween age and success in SLA.This is actually talked over in the late 1967s
by Eric Lenneberg. According to this hypothesis, to be a native-like speaker L2 acquisition must
occur before adolescence.During the first ten years of life, language acquisition descends the best
period because the brain keeps its ‘plasticity’ (Penfield & Roberts, 1959).
However, many researchers have their different views &questions about the acquisition of L2
between the adolescence and younger. They are of the view that, who are better in L2 learning
adolescence or younger? This issue is needed to discuss.
Krashen et al. (1979) found that the older is faster, but the young is better (cited in Singleton
and Ryan, 2004, Hu, 2016). If children learn second language earlier it looks very comfortable
for them (Coppiters, 1987, Scovel, 1988, Johnson and Newport, 1989). So from this discussion
many questions arise, For example:
❖ Will younger learn better than the older in L2 learning?
❖ What is the best time for younger to start to learn an L2?
❖ Are younger in different ages good at learning L2?
❖ How should younger effectively learn the L2?
❖ How does age affect L2 learning?
Larsen-Freeman & Long, (2008) revealed that when a child enters puberty acquire more quickly
and easily of L2 than post puberty period. The impact of age in second language acquisition have
been discussed in SLA theories and research. According to Lightbown and Spada (2008),
learning depends on learners’ characteristics and the environment.According to their findings
younger learners are less problem solving and metalinguistics than older learners. Mark
Patkowski (1982) examined the level of spoken English of sixty-seven immigrants to the U.S.
His finding was that pre-puberty learners achieveL2 better than post-puberty learners. Johnson
and Newport (quoted in Lightbown&Spada, 2008) conducted an experiment of forty-six Chinese
and Koreans speakers and the finding was that the performance levels lower in older children
than younger. Again, according to Snow and Hoefnagel-Hohle (1982), adults learned quickly
this paper, an attempt is made to study and analyze the age related differences between young
and old learners in second language acquisitionon the basis of critical period hypothesis and
other relevant variables and draw some conclusions related to this widespread belief.
Literature Review
Critical period hypothesis (CPH)
Penfield and Roberts (1959) was first introduced thisCritical PeriodHypothesis (CPH)into the
field of language acquisition (cited in Herschensohn, 2007and Hu, 2016) & then was purified by
Lenneberg after eight years. According to Lenneberg (1967): “primary language acquisition must
occur during a critical periodwhich ends at about the age of puberty with the establishment
cerebral lateralization of function.”
This hypothesis suggests that the process associated with in any language acquisition which
takes place after the age of puberty will be qualitatively less from those involved in first
language acquisition. “CPH is that any language learning which occurs after the age of puberty
will be slower and less successful than normal first language learning (Krashen1975; Lenneberg
1967, 1969; Scovel1969).” Language acquisition must to start between age two and puberty
(Lenneberg 1967). He believed that lateralisation process of the brain occur simultaneously in
this period and children's brains are more flexible than that of adults (cited in Hu, 2016). Though
recently neurologists suggest that different time frames have existence for the lateralisation
process of different language functions.
According to Ellis (1986), language acquisition can take place naturally and efficiently in a
certain age (before puberty) but after that period the brain does not work in the same way in later
period (post puberty).SLA research took on the critical period hypothesis (CPH) and applied it to
second language learning. In its most general version, the CPH for SLA states that the
‘susceptibility’ or ‘sensitivity’ to language input varies as a function of age, with adult L2
learners being less susceptible to input than child L2 learners.
So from this hypothesis, it can be said that the best period for the acquisition of L2 is
childhood. Younger will learn language naturally and successfully in this period, but after this
period it seemed to be difficultfor them to acquire the second language. Therefore, the CPH
Does age effects in the process L2 acquisition?
We have observed that learners who start early in life to express themselves to their L2 are more
likely to attain a native or native-like accent than older starters. The critical period studies
usually focused on child-adult differences and suggested that younger learners, still operating
within the critical period, should be superior learners. However, studies of oral language skill
acquisition by children of different ages has led to the conclusion that, initially, older children
acquire faster than younger children (cited in Collier 1987).For example, Ervin-Tripp (1974)
found that after nine months of instruction in French, 7- to-9-year-olds performed better than 4-
to 6-year-olds did in comprehension, imitation, and conversation. Similarly, Fathman (1975)
found that in the first year of study, 11- to 15-year-olds were significantly better at acquiring
English as a second language than 6- to 10-year-olds in pronunciation, morphology, and syntax
(cited in Collier 1987).
According to Rod Ellis in the book entitled “The Study of Second Language Acquisition”, it
states that Krashen, Long, and Scarcella had reviewed a number of studies by reaching
threeconclusions about the effects of age in second language acquisition:
➢ Adults proceed through the early stages of syntactical and morphological
developmentfaster than children (where time and exposure are held constant).
➢ Older children acquire faster than younger children (again, in the early stages ofsyntactic
and morphological development where the time and exposure are heldconstant).
➢ Acquires who begin natural exposure to a second language during childhood
achievehigher second-language proficiency than those beginning as adults.
These conclusions believe that children who start L2 acquisition often achieve higher levels of
ultimate proficiency than adults.Yet, it does not mean that older learners cannot do better than
younger learners because thisresearch points that older learners are better where knowledge
of grammar is concerned.
Researchers are still trying to find out what effect age has on the language learner when the
exposure to L2 is not enough. Munoz (2010) argues that the amount and the quality of the
language input is exceedingly important to young learners at the early stages of second language
learning. She compares a study between younger and older language learners on L2 and indicates
that young learners consistently show better language results than adults. From further study, it
where they are naturally express to the more quality of natural language input to L2 rather than
starting at an early age in classroom environment, (Munoz, 2010, p. 40-41). It indicates that
exposure is more important than the age factor to SLA. Most researches on the critical period
seem to support the theory that “the younger, the better” (Larson-Hall 2008). However those
researches have been conducted when learners were active participants and culturally involved in
the target country.The learners were actively involved to the target language on daily basis and
received great amount of language 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. Children
and adults learn language through different techniques and have different learning abilities
(Larson-Hall, 2008). She discusses if young learners learn to L2 with minimal exposurethat
makes not enough to form morphological, syntactic or phonological system. This statement is
confirmed when older results are analysed and show that there is no linguistic advantage of
younger to L2, 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. To explore further the motivation and
attitudes towards learning a second language, Larson-Hall’s investigation from 2008 suggests
that young learners have more positive attitude towards studying a foreign language (Larson-Hall
2008). 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 as she argues that “age does
learners receive enough input“ (p.24). 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
Conclusions
We can conclude that age is one of the important characteristics that determine an individual’s
learning on second language.In many research studies age is highly associated with critical
period. According to the Critical Period Hypothesis, age has been considered asadvantage stage
for young learners in second language learning. The younger will learn L2 better than older,
though older learner is regarded as fast and efficient language learner. We should teach learners’
foreign language as early as possible, especially at their early age. It is widely believed that
young learners show their superior learning quality to acquire second language than older
learners based on CPH.The current study serves as a preliminary effort in the investigation of the
age limitations in ultimateL2 achievement. To clarify the timeframe of the age constraints on L2
learning, future research should use.
References
1. Ellis, R. (1986). Understanding Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
2. DeKeyser, R, M. (2007). Practice in a Second Language: Perspective from Applied
LinguisticsandCognitive Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
3. Moyer, A. (1999). Ultimate attainment in L2 phonology: The critical factors of age,
motivation, and instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 81-108.
4. Trofimovich, P., & Baker, W. (2006). Learning second-language suprasegmentals: Effect
5. Of L2 experience on prosody and fluency characteristics of L2 speech. Studies in
6. Second Language Acquisition, 28, 1-30.
7. Jun, S-A, & Oh, M. (2000) Acquisition of Second Language Intonation, Proceedings of
8. International Conference on Spoken Language Processing, 4, 76-79.
9. Asher, J., & Garcia, R. (1969). The optimal age to learn a foreign language. Modern
10.Language Journal, 53, 334–341.
11.Lightbown, P. and N. Spada. (1993). How Languages are learned. Oxford: Oxford
12.Cook, V. (1991). Second Language Learning and Language Teaching Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
13.Nejadansari, D. &Nasrollahzadeh, J. (2011). Effects of Age on Second Language
Acquisition. Studies in Literature and Language Vol. 3, No. 3, 2011, pp. 19-24.
14.Herschensohn, J. (2007). Language Development and Age. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
15.Bialystok, E. & Barry, M. (1999). The problem of age in second language acquisition:
Influences from language, structure, and task. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 2
(2) 127-145. Cambridge University Press
16.Birdsong, D. (1992). Ultimate attainment in second language acquisition. Language
Learning, 68, 706-755.
17.Birdsong, D. (2006). Age and second language acquisition and processing: A selective
overview. Language Learning, 56, 9-49.
18.Cummins, J., Swain, M., & Allen, P. (1990). Social and individual factors in the
development of bilingual proficiency.
19.Harley, B. (1986). Age in second language acquisition. Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual
Matters.
20.Bailey, N., Madden, C., &Krashen, S. (1974). Is there a ‘natural sequence’in adult second
language learning? Language Learning, 21, 235-243.
21.Krashen, S. (1973). Lateralization, Language Learning and the Critical Period: Some
New Evidence. Language and Learning, 23, 63-74.
22.Patkowski, M. (1990). Age and Accent in a Second Language: A Reply to James Emir
Flege.
23.Applied Linguistics, 11, 73-89.
24.Flege, J. E. (1999). Age of learning and second-language speech. In D. P. Birdsong (Ed.),
Second Language Acquisition and the Critical Period Hypothesis (pp. 101-132).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
25.Sang, Y. (2017). A Conceptual Review of Age Effect on L2. Acquisition. Journal of
Education and Practice. Vol.8, No.9.
26.Johnson, J, & Newport, E. (1989). Critical period effects in second language learning:
The influence of maturational state on the acquisition of English as a second language.
27.Agulló, G. L. (2006). Overcoming age-related differences. ELT Journal, 60(4), 365-373.
28.Lightbown, P. &Spada, N. (2008). How languages are learned (3rd ed.). New York:
Oxford University Press.
29.Brown, H. D. (2002). Principles of language learning and teaching. White Plains, New
York: Longman.
30.Hu, R. (2016). The Age Factor in Second Language Learning. Theory and Practice in
Language Studies Vol. 6, No. 11, pp. 2164-2168
31.Craik, F. I. M. (2000). Age-related changes in human memory. In D. C. Park & N.
Schwarz (Eds.) Cognitive aging: A primer (pp. 75–92). Philadelphia: Psychology Press.
32.Snow, E. & Marian, H. (1978). The Critical Period for Language Acquisition: Evidence
from Second Language Learning. Child Development, Vol. 49, No. 4 (Dec., 1978), pp.
