key concepts in elt

Age and the critical period hypothesis

Christian Abello-Contesse

In the field of second language acquisition (SLA), how specific aspects oflearning a non-native language (L2) may be affected by when the processbegins is referred to as the ‘age factor’. Because of the way age intersectswith a range of social, affective, educational, and experiential variables,clarifying its relationship with learning rate and/or success is a majorchallenge.

There is a popular belief that children as L2 learners are ‘superior’ toadults (Scovel 2000), that is, the younger the learner, the quicker thelearning process and the better the outcomes. Nevertheless, a closerexamination of theways inwhich age combineswith other variables revealsamore complex picture, with both favourable and unfavourable age-relateddifferences being associated with early- and late-starting L2 learners(Johnstone 2002).

The ‘critical period hypothesis’ (CPH) is a particularly relevant case in point.This is the claim that there is, indeed, an optimal period for languageacquisition, ending at puberty. However, in its original formulation(Lenneberg 1967), evidence for its existence was based on the relearning ofimpaired L1 skills, rather than the learning of a second language undernormal circumstances.

Furthermore, although the age factor is an uncontroversial researchvariable extending from birth to death (Cook 1995), and the CPH isa narrowly focused proposal subject to recurrent debate, ironically, it is thelatter that tends to dominate SLA discussions (Garcıa Lecumberri andGallardo 2003), resulting in a number of competing conceptualizations.Thus, in the current literature on the subject (Bialystok 1997; Richards andSchmidt 2002; Abello-Contesse et al. 2006), references can be found to(i) multiple critical periods (each based on a specific language component,such as age six for L2 phonology), (ii) the non-existence of one or morecritical periods for L2 versus L1 acquisition, (iii) a ‘sensitive’ yet not ‘critical’period, and (iv) a gradual and continual decline from childhood toadulthood.

It therefore needs to be recognized that there is a marked contrast betweenthe CPHas an issue of continuing dispute in SLA, on the one hand, and, onthe other, the popular view that it is an invariable ‘law’, equally applicable toany L2 acquisition context or situation. In fact, research indicates that ageeffects of all kinds depend largely on the actual opportunities for learningwhich are available within overall contexts of L2 acquisition and particular

170 ELT Journal Volume 63/2 April 2009; doi:10.1093/elt/ccn072ªª The Author 2008. Published by Oxford University Press; all rights reserved.Advance Access publication December 18, 2008

at Liverpool U

niversity Library on N

ovember 3, 2015

http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/D

ownloaded from

learning situations, notably the extent to which initial exposure issubstantial and sustained (Lightbown 2000).

Thus, most classroom-based studies have shown not only a lack of directcorrelation between an earlier start and more successful/rapid L2development but also a strong tendency for older children and teenagers tobe more efficient learners. For example, in research conducted in thecontext of conventional school programmes, Cenoz (2003) and Munoz(2006) have shown that learners whose exposure to the L2 began at age11 consistently displayed higher levels of proficiency than those for whom itbeganat4 or8.Furthermore, comparable limitationshavebeen reported foryoung learners in school settings involving innovative, immersion-typeprogrammes, where exposure to the target language is significantlyincreased through subject-matter teaching in the L2 (Genesee 1992; Abello-Contesse 2006). In sum, as Harley and Wang (1997) have argued, moremature learners are usually capable of making faster initial progress inacquiring the grammatical and lexical components of an L2 due to theirhigher level of cognitive development and greater analytical abilities.

In terms of language pedagogy, it can therefore be concluded that (i) there isno single ‘magic’ age for L2 learning, (ii) both older and younger learners areable to achieve advanced levels of proficiency in an L2, and (iii) the generaland specific characteristics of the learning environment are also likely to bevariables of equal or greater importance.

ReferencesAbello-Contesse, C. 2006. ‘Does interaction help orhinder oral L2 development in early Englishimmersion?’ in C. Abello-Contesse et al. (eds.).Abello-Contesse, C., R. Chacon Beltran, M. D. Lopez-Jimenez, and M. M. Torreblanca-Lopez (eds.). 2006.Age in L2 Acquisition and Teaching. Bern, Switzerland:Peter Lang.Bialystok, E. 1997. ‘The structure of age: in search ofbarriers to second language acquisition’. SecondLanguage Research 13/2: 116–37.Cenoz, J. 2003. ‘The influence of age on theacquisition of English: general proficiency, attitudesand code-mixing’ in M. P. Garcıa Mayo andM. L. Garcıa Lecumberri (eds.).Cook, V. 1995. ‘Multicompetence and effects of age’in D. Singleton and Z. Lengyel (eds.). The Age Factorin Second Language Acquisition. Clevedon, UK:Multilingual Matters Ltd.Garcıa Lecumberri, M. L. and F. Gallardo. 2003.‘English FL sounds in school learners of differentages’ in M. P. Garcıa Mayo and M. L. GarcıaLecumberri (eds.).GarcıaMayo,M. P. andM. L. Garcıa Lecumberri (eds.).2003. Age and Acquisition of English as a ForeignLanguage. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters Ltd.Genesee, F. 1992. ‘Pedagogical implications ofsecond language immersion’ in F. Etxeberria and

J. Arzamendi (eds.). Bilinguismo y Adquisicion deSegundas Lenguas. Bilbao,Spain: ServicioEditorial dela Universidad del Paıs Vasco.Harley, B. and W. Wang. 1997. ‘The critical periodhypothesis: where are we now?’ in A. M. B. de Grootand J. F. Kroll (eds.). Tutorials in Bilingualism.Psycholinguistic Perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum Associates.Johnstone, R. 2002. ‘Addressing ‘‘the age factor’’:some implications for language policy’. Council ofEurope, Strasbourg: Available at: http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/source/JohnstoneEN.pdfLenneberg, E. H. 1967. Biological Foundations ofLanguage. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Lightbown, P. 2000. ‘Classroom SLA research andsecond language teaching’. Applied Linguistics 21/4:431–62.Munoz, C. 2006. ‘The BAF project: research on theeffects of age on foreign language acquisition’ inC. Abello-Contesse et al. (eds.).Richards, J. C. and R. Schmidt. 2002. LongmanDictionary of Language Teaching and AppliedLinguistics. London: Longman.Scovel, T.2000. ‘ ‘‘The younger, thebetter’’myth andbilingual education’ in R. D. Gonzalez and I. Melis(eds.). Language Ideologies. Critical Perspectives on theOfficial English Movement. Mahwah, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum Associates.

Age and the critical period hypothesis 171

at Liverpool U

niversity Library on N

ovember 3, 2015

http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/D

ownloaded from

The authorDr Christian Abello-Contesse is an AssociateProfessor at the University of Seville, Spain,where he teaches undergraduate courses inELTmethodology and psycholinguistics andgraduate seminars in SLA, bilingualism,

and bilingual education. He has publishednumerous journal articles and book chapterson L2 learning and teaching and has taught atseveral universities in Chile, Spain, and theUnited States.Email: christian.abello@ono.com

172 Christian Abello-Contesse

at Liverpool U

niversity Library on N

ovember 3, 2015

http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/D

ownloaded from