scholarly journals Is there a critical period for L1 but not L2?

2018 ◽  
Vol 21 (5) ◽  
pp. 928-929 ◽  
Author(s):  
ELISSA L. NEWPORT
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Strong Evidence ◽  
Critical Period ◽  
Sensitive Period ◽  
Important Work ◽  
Important Data ◽  
Second Languages ◽  
L2 Learning ◽  
L1 Acquisition ◽  
L1 And L2

I am very pleased to comment on this important and thought-provoking keynote article. The evidence reviewed by Mayberry and Kluender (Mayberry & Kluender, 2017) is extremely significant for our understanding of a critical or sensitive period for the acquisition of language, and the hypothesis they suggest regarding a critical period for first but not second language is challenging. The studies of late L1 learning from the Mayberry lab provide very strong evidence for a critical or sensitive period. However, I am less persuaded of their interpretation of L2 learning and the contrast they hypothesize between L1 and L2 learning during adulthood. I will suggest another hypothesis regarding the differences in age effects for first versus second languages, one that is equally compatible with their important data. My focus here is therefore on their interpretation of the L2 literature. I will not comment further on their review of Mayberry's remarkable studies of late L1 acquisition, except to congratulate them on this very important work.

scholarly journals Variation in late L1 acquisition?

2018 ◽  
Vol 21 (5) ◽  
pp. 917-918 ◽  
Author(s):  
KAREN EMMOREY
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Critical Period ◽  
Age Of Acquisition ◽  
L2 Proficiency ◽  
Language Aptitude ◽  
L2 Learning ◽  
L1 Acquisition

Mayberry and Kluender review evidence that second language (L2) proficiency declines with age of acquisition (regardless of modality), but they also review evidence for variable L2 outcomes for individuals, with factors such as motivation, language aptitude, education, and L2 experience playing a role. They argue that if L2 outcomes were fully under the control of a critical period for language (CPL), these learning variables should not predict L2 outcome, and the outcome of L2 learning would not be consistently observed to be so variable. The questions raised in this commentary are whether there is variation in late L1 proficiency and whether such variation could provide insights into the CPL.

scholarly journals Understanding individual variation in levels of second language attainment through the lens of critical period mechanisms

2018 ◽  
Vol 21 (5) ◽  
pp. 930-931 ◽  
Author(s):  
REBECCA REH ◽  
MARIA ARREDONDO ◽  
JANET F. WERKER
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Category Learning ◽  
Critical Period ◽  
First Language ◽  
Visual Language ◽  
Phonetic Category ◽  
Critical Periods ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Language Discrimination ◽  
L1 Acquisition

Mayberry and Kluender (2017) present an important and compelling argument that in order to understand critical periods (CPs) in language acquisition, it is essential to disentangle studies of late first language (L1) acquisition from those of second language (L2) acquisition. Their primary thesis is that timely exposure to an L1 is crucial for establishing language circuitry, thus providing a foundation on which an L2 can build. They note that while there is considerable evidence of interference from the L1 on acquisition of the L2 – especially in late L2 learners (as in our work on cascading influences on phonetic category learning and visual language discrimination, e.g., Werker & Hensch, 2015 and Weikum, Vouloumanos, Navarra, Soto-Faraco, Sebastián-Gallés & Werker, 2013, respectively) – there are other examples of ways in which the L1 can scaffold L2 acquisition. Mayberry and Kluender take this evidence of L1 scaffolding L2 as undermining the value of considering CPs as useful in understanding L2 acquisition.

Language acquisition without Universal Grammar: a general nativist proposal for L2 learning

1996 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 374-397 ◽  
Author(s):  
William O'Grady
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Second Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Universal Grammar ◽  
L2 Learning ◽  
Acquisition Device ◽  
L1 Acquisition

This article explores the prospects for a 'general nativist' theory of first and second language acquisition. A modular acquisition device that does not include Universal Grammar (UG) is outlined and its role in the emergence of an L1 is considered. The relevance of this proposal for a theory of SLA is then explored, leading to the suggestion that the properties and outcome typical of postadolescent L2 learning can be traced to the fact that adults have only partial access to the L1 acquisition device.

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.

An ERP Study of Second Language Learning after Childhood: Effects of Proficiency

2005 ◽  
Vol 17 (8) ◽  
pp. 1212-1228 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shiro Ojima ◽  
Hiroki Nakata ◽  
Ryusuke Kakigi
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Language Learning ◽  
Language Processing ◽  
Critical Period ◽  
Semantic Processing ◽  
Time Course ◽  
Syntactic Processing ◽  
Early Maturation ◽  
Period Effects ◽  
L2 Learning

Whether there is an absolute critical period for acquiring language is a matter of continuous debate. One approach to address this issue is to compare the processes of second language (L2) learning after childhood and those of first language (L1) learning during childhood. To study the cortical process of postchildhood L2 learning, we compared event-related brain potentials recorded from two groups of adult Japanese speakers who attained either high or intermediate proficiency in English after childhood (J-High and J-Low), and adult native English speakers (ENG). Semantic anomalies embedded in English sentences evoked a clear N400 component in all three groups, with only the time course of the brain activation varying among the groups. Syntactic violations elicited a left-lateralized negativity similar to the left anterior negativity in ENG and J-High, but not in J-Low. In ENG, a P600 component was additionally found. These results suggest that semantic processing is robust from early on in L2 learning, whereas the development of syntactic processing is more dependent on proficiency as evidenced by the lack of the left-lateralized negativity in J-Low. Because early maturation and stability of semantic processing as opposed to syntactic processing are also a feature of L1 processing, postchildhood L2 learning may be governed by the same brain properties as those which govern childhood L1 learning. We argue that these processes are qualitatively similar in many respects, with only restricted domains of language processing being subject to absolute critical period effects.

scholarly journals Cerebral lateralisation of first and second languages in bilinguals assessed using functional transcranial Doppler ultrasound

2016 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
pp. 15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clara R. Grabitz ◽  
Kate E. Watkins ◽  
Dorothy V. M. Bishop
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Transcranial Doppler ◽  
Cerebral Arteries ◽  
Transcranial Doppler Sonography ◽  
Transcranial Doppler Ultrasound ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Second Languages ◽  
Language History ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
L1 And L2

Background: Lateralised representation of language in monolinguals is a well-established finding, but the situation is much less clear when there is more than one language. Studies to date have identified a number of factors that might influence the brain organisation of language in bilinguals. These include proficiency, age of acquisition and exposure to the second language. The question as to whether the cerebral lateralisation of first and second languages are the same or different is as yet unresolved. Methods: We used functional transcranial Doppler sonography (FTCD) to measure cerebral lateralisation in the first and second languages in 26 high proficiency bilinguals with German or French as their first language (L1) and English as their second language (L2). FTCD was used to measure task-dependent blood flow velocity changes in the left and right middle cerebral arteries during word generation cued by single letters. Language history measures and handedness were assessed through self-report questionnaires. Results:The majority of participants were significantly left lateralised for both L1 and L2, with no significant difference in the size of asymmetry indices between L1 and L2. Asymmetry indices for L1 and L2 were not related to language history, such as proficiency of the L2. Conclusion: In highly proficient bilinguals, there is strong concordance for cerebral lateralisation of first and second languages.

scholarly journals When timing is everything: Age of first-language acquisition effects on second-language learning

2007 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 537-549 ◽  
Author(s):  
RACHEL I. MAYBERRY
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Language Learning ◽  
First Language ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Linguistic Structure ◽  
Specific Effects ◽  
Sensory Motor ◽  
L1 Acquisition ◽  
L1 And L2 ◽  
Motor Modality

The present paper summarizes three experiments that investigate the effects of age of acquisition on first-language (L1) acquisition in relation to second-language (L2) outcome. The experiments use the unique acquisition situations of childhood deafness and sign language. The key factors controlled across the studies are age of L1 acquisition, the sensory–motor modality of the language, and level of linguistic structure. Findings consistent across the studies show age of L1 acquisition to be a determining factor in the success of both L1 and L2 acquisition. Sensory–motor modality shows no general or specific effects. It is of importance that the effects of age of L1 acquisition on both L1 and L2 outcome are apparent across levels of linguistic structure, namely, syntax, phonology, and the lexicon. The results demonstrate that L1 acquisition bestows not only facility with the linguistic structure of the L1, but also the ability to learn linguistic structure in the L2.

A functional approach to the attainability of typological targets in L2 acquisition

1986 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 16-32 ◽  
Author(s):  
Helmut Zobl
Keyword(s):  
Functional Approach ◽  
Input String ◽  
The Other ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Second Languages ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
Logical Entailment ◽  
L1 Acquisition ◽  
L1 And L2 ◽  
Relationship Of

This paper proposes a functional, parsing-based approach to the attainability of typological targets in L1 and L2 acquisition. Ideally, there should be a functional synchronization between the order in which principles constituting typological values emerge in learner grammars and the computational demands imposed by the simplest data instantiating a typological value. In L2 acquisition this functional synchronization is jeopardized by the possibility of L1-inspired misparses which may impute more structure to an input string than is consistent with a minimal parse. As a result, the more marked typological setting or the implicans of two grammatical principles in a relationship of logical entailment can appear first in interlanguage grammars. In L1 acquisition, on the other hand, misparses appear to be the result of assuming too little structure. Because of these differences, recovery from an inappropriate value follows different courses in L1 and L2 acquisition. It is proposed that this difference has important implications for the learn-ability of first and second languages.

Second language processing: when are first and second languages processed similarly?

2008 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 397-430 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura Sabourin ◽  
Laurie A. Stowe
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Language Processing ◽  
First Language ◽  
Grammatical Gender ◽  
Event Related Potential ◽  
Neural Processing ◽  
Second Language Processing ◽  
Second Languages ◽  
L2 Processing ◽  
L1 And L2

In this article we investigate the effects of first language (L1) on second language (L2) neural processing for two grammatical constructions (verbal domain dependency and grammatical gender), focusing on the event-related potential P600 effect, which has been found in both L1 and L2 processing. Native Dutch speakers showed a P600 effect for both constructions tested. However, in L2 Dutch (with German or a Romance language as L1) a P600 effect only occurred if L1 and L2 were similar. German speakers show a P600 effect to both constructions. Romance speakers only show a P600 effect within the verbal domain. We interpret these findings as showing that with similar rule-governed processing routines in L1 and L2 (verbal domain processing for both German and Romance speakers), similar neural processing is possible in L1 and L2. However, lexically-driven constructions that are not the same in L1 and L2 (grammatical gender for Romance speakers) do not result in similar neural processing in L1 and L2 as measured by the P600 effect.

scholarly journals Research Timeline: Form-focused instruction and second language acquisition

2015 ◽  
Vol 49 (1) ◽  
pp. 35-62 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hossein Nassaji
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Second Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Formal Instruction ◽  
Zero Position ◽  
L2 Learning ◽  
The One ◽  
L1 And L2 ◽  
Learner Language

This article provides a timeline of research on form-focused instruction (FFI). Over the past 40 years, research on the role of instruction has undergone many changes. Much of the early research concentrated on determining whether formal instruction makes any difference in the development of learner language. This question was motivated in part by a theoretical discussion in the field of cognitive psychology over the role of explicit versus implicit learning, on the one hand, and a debate in the field of second language acquisition (SLA) over the role of naturalistic exposure versus formal instruction, on the other. In the early 1980s, for example, based on the notion that the processes involved in second language (L2) learning are similar to those in first language (L1) learning, Krashen (e.g., Krashen 1981, 1982, 1985) made a distinction between learning and acquisition and claimed that an L2 should be acquired through natural exposure not learned through formal instruction. Thus, he claimed that FFI has little beneficial effect on language acquisition. This position, which has also been known as a ‘zero position’ on instruction, was also taken by a number of other researchers who argued that L1 and L2 learning follow similar processes and that what L2 learners need in order to acquire a second language is naturalistic exposure to meaning-focused communication rather than formal instruction (Dulay & Burt 1974; Felix 1981; Prabhu 1987; Schwartz 1993; Zobl 1995).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document