scholarly journals Rethinking the critical period for language: New insights into an old question from American Sign Language

2017 ◽  
Vol 21 (5) ◽  
pp. 886-905 ◽  
Author(s):  
RACHEL I. MAYBERRY ◽  
ROBERT KLUENDER
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
American Sign Language ◽  
Language Proficiency ◽  
Critical Period ◽  
Second Language Proficiency ◽  
Age Related ◽  
Language Outcome ◽  
L1 Acquisition ◽  
Ultimate Attainment

The hypothesis that children surpass adults in long-term second-language proficiency is accepted as evidence for a critical period for language. However, the scope and nature of a critical period for language has been the subject of considerable debate. The controversy centers on whether the age-related decline in ultimate second-language proficiency is evidence for a critical period or something else. Here we argue that age-onset effects for first vs. second language outcome are largely different. We show this by examining psycholinguistic studies of ultimate attainment in L2 vs. L1 learners, longitudinal studies of adolescent L1 acquisition, and neurolinguistic studies of late L2 and L1 learners. This research indicates that L1 acquisition arises from post-natal brain development interacting with environmental linguistic experience. By contrast, L2 learning after early childhood is scaffolded by prior childhood L1 acquisition, both linguistically and neurally, making it a less clear test of the critical period for language.

scholarly journals Rethinking the critical period for language: New insights into an old question from American Sign Language

2018 ◽  
Vol 21 (5) ◽  
pp. 938-944 ◽  
Author(s):  
RACHEL I. MAYBERRY ◽  
ROBERT KLUENDER
Keyword(s):  
American Sign Language ◽  
Critical Period ◽  
Similar Case ◽  
Deaf Child ◽  
Spoken Language ◽  
Parental Choice ◽  
First Response ◽  
L1 Acquisition ◽  
Positive Effect

We thank the commentators for their thoughtful critiques, which we found both insightful and stimulating to our own thinking. Our first response is that, while debates about the CPL in theoretical contexts are important, the vigor and intensity of these debates should not overshadow the fact that the main goal of our article was to highlight a finding of vital importance: Sufficient language input in early childhood matters deeply because it has long-term consequences (Lillo-Martin, 2018). Woll sums up this point both succinctly and poignantly in her report of a similar case of very late L1 exposure in adulthood who had decades of experience: “For a [deaf] child who, even in the context of early intervention, does not acquire a spoken language, the danger is that they will never have native-like mastery of any L1.” This is what truly matters. Our hope is that our keynote article and the accompanying commentaries might have a positive effect on clinical practice, educational policy, and even parental choice in this regard. In what follows, we discuss the main issues arising from the commentaries. First we note the points of agreement followed by a clarification of what we did not claim in our article. Researchers continue to debate what the shape of the AoA function looks like and its theoretical implications, which we address third. We then address the issues raised as to whether late L1 acquisition and late L2 learning differ in degree or kind, and last we discuss what we mean when we say that language acquisition during post-natal brain growth creates the capacity to learn language.

scholarly journals Second language ultimate attainment: Effects of maturation, exercise, and social/psychological factors

2018 ◽  
Vol 21 (5) ◽  
pp. 921-923 ◽  
Author(s):  
KENNETH HYLTENSTAM
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Second Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Critical Period ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Social Psychological ◽  
Prior Learning ◽  
Age Related ◽  
Exact Position ◽  
Ultimate Attainment

Mayberry and Kluender (2017) offer a rich review of empirical research that contributes to the understanding of age-related effects on first and second language acquisition. Their keynote article compiles current, primarily linguistic and neurolinguistic, research on the notion of a critical period for language (CPL). The authors conclude “that the putative CPL applies to L1 learning, and that L2 effects are a consequence of this prior learning” (Mayberry & Kluender, 2017: p. 6). As they propose a clear role for CPL in L1 learning, and because their exact position on its role in L2 learning is, to my mind, not as clearly articulated, I will take the opportunity to argue the following: If a CPL exists at all, it should have identifiable implications for all kinds of language acquisition (cf. Gleitman & Newport, 1995). In the case of L2 acquisition what needs to be identified is how maturational constraints (implicated by a CPL) interact with other conditions that are at hand when the second language comes onto the scene.

The Cloze Technique as A Pedagogical Tool for the Training of Translators and Interpreters

Target ◽  
1992 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 223-236 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sylvie Lambert
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Language Proficiency ◽  
Real Life ◽  
Second Language Proficiency ◽  
Pedagogical Tool ◽  
And Training ◽  
Cloze Test

Abstract This article focuses on the versatility of the cloze technique, as a tool not only for measuring second-language proficiency, but also for selecting and training both translators (written cloze) and interpreters (aural cloze). When presented auditorily, the cloze test discriminates pass and fail interpreter students, given the external pacing and speed stress experienced by simultaneous interpreters in real life. The article offers several ways to administer the cloze technique as well as examples of such doctored material.

scholarly journals Levels of tests of Russian as a foreign language in terms of school age characteristics

2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 222-234
Author(s):  
Nadezhda A. Dubinina ◽  
Dmitrii V. Ptiushkin
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Foreign Language ◽  
Language Proficiency ◽  
Communicative Competence ◽  
Russian Language ◽  
School Students ◽  
Second Language Proficiency ◽  
Academic Literature ◽  
Training Courses ◽  
Guidelines And Recommendations

The current paper discusses possibilities for school students to successfully pass TORFL-I/B1, TORFL-II/B2 and TORFL-III/C1. The relevance of this article is determined by the fact that despite Russian as a foreign (second) language has been taught within the framework of the TORFL system for more than two decades, there is a shortage of methodological material aimed at preparing school students for TORFL. In addition, the issue of choosing the level of testing in accordance with the level of Russian language proficiency and taking into account age specifics is not sufficiently covered in Russian academic literature. The aim of this paper is to define age reference marks for school students who plan to pass TORFL. The materials to review and analyse were the works of Russian and foreign researchers in the field of foreign (second) language proficiency, language development of children and adolescents, assessment of school students communicative competence, language assessment, and correlation of these data with the requirements for completing tasks of the TORFL-I/B1, TORFL-II/B2, TORFL-III/C1 Writing subtests selected as an example. The paper has resulted in providing recommendations on the choice of examination level for senior and junior school students, within the framework of TORFL-I/B1, TORFL-II/B2, TORFL-III/C1, which can also be used in the development of training courses in Russian as a foreign language for schools. The authors concluded that there is need to develop a new methodological area in testing of Russian as a foreign language system capable to provide guidelines and recommendations for preparing school students for examinations, and designing TORFL training courses and teaching materials according to the school students age.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document