The critical period and parameter setting in five cases of delayed L1 acquisition

Three well-known cases of extreme linguistic isolation during childhood and two recent cases from the neurological literature involving left-hemispherectomy in children are examined. In all five situations, subjects underwent delayed L1 acquisition (with L1 onset ranging from 5 to 31 years). “End-state” utterances provided in published reports are analyzed for evidence concerning subjects’ control of the Head Position, Null Subject, and Wh parameters. In addition, the early phrasal development of a subset of the five subjects is investigated in terms of the asymmetric Merge operation. Findings concerning ultimate attainment indicate that the younger cases set parameters more successfully, and that performance declines markedly with increasing age, while results regarding early multiword utterances suggest that these are strikingly “normal” as long as delayed onset of L1 occurs within, and right up to, the critical period boundary. This pattern, it is argued, is consistent with the notion that pre- and post-critical period first language learning involve qualitatively different processes.

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

10.1017/s1366728918000263 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 21 (5) ◽

pp. 930-931 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

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.

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

10.1017/s1366728917000724 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 21 (5) ◽

pp. 886-905 ◽

Cited By ~ 42

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 ◽

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.

The effects of Age of Acquisition on an L2 learner’s Ultimate Attainment

Journal of Contemporary Educational Research ◽

10.26689/jcer.v4i5.1246 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 4 (5) ◽

Author(s):

Xinlu Li

Keyword(s):

Second Language ◽

Adult Learners ◽

Language Learning ◽

Language Learners ◽

Critical Period ◽

Second Language Learners ◽

Previous Analysis ◽

Learning Ability ◽

Controversial Topic ◽

This paper focuses on generalizing different theories towards the age effect on the ultimate attainment of second language learners since it has long been a controversial topic in researchers’ mind. In this paper, it gives evidences on cases in favor of the Critical Period Hypothesis, which claimed the loss of language learning ability after puberty and presents counter-evidences on the successful acquisition of second language in adult learners. It has reached into a conclusion that consists the viewpoint drawn on previous analysis and confirmed the possibility in ultimate second language attainment for late learners.

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

Applied Psycholinguistics ◽

10.1017/s0142716407070294 ◽

2007 ◽

Vol 28 (3) ◽

pp. 537-549 ◽

Cited By ~ 75

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.

Constructing a Second Language

Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics ◽

10.1075/arcl.7.11dab ◽

2009 ◽

Vol 7 ◽

pp. 277-290 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Ewa Dąbrowska

Keyword(s):

Language Learning ◽

Cognitive Linguistics ◽

Special Section ◽

First Language ◽

Linguistic Knowledge ◽

Transfer Of Knowledge ◽

Lexical Meaning ◽

L1 Acquisition ◽

The Relationship

All the papers in this special section address issues central to cognitive linguistics research: usage-based models with their focus on frequency; multi-word units and the relationship between lexical and grammatical knowledge; and the nature of lexical meaning, especially construal or “thinking for speaking”. Cognitive Linguistics is thus clearly a useful paradigm for L2 research. The contributors also emphasise that many of the processes operating in L1 acquisition are relevant in L2A as well. In this paper, I discuss the opposite side of the coin: how cognitively-inspired L2 research can inform work on first language learning and theoretical linguistics, focussing in particular on three issues that have been extensively studied in an L2 context but neglected by the other language sciences: transfer of knowledge between constructions, the role of explicit learning, and individual differences in linguistic knowledge.

Differences and similarities between late first-language and second-language learning

10.1017/s1366728918000159 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 21 (5) ◽

pp. 924-925 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

Author(s):

DIANE LILLO-MARTIN

Keyword(s):

Second Language ◽

Language Learning ◽

Critical Period ◽

Second Language Learning ◽

First Language ◽

Practical Reasons ◽

Brain Areas ◽

Linguistic Comprehension ◽

The Brain ◽

Delayed Exposure

The keynote article by Mayberry and Kluender (2017) clearly shows that there are important effects of delayed exposure to a first language (L1), in linguistic comprehension, production, processing, and even in the brain areas that are active for language. This set of findings is of great importance for both theoretical and practical reasons. As Mayberry and Kluender show, one implication of such findings bears on the theory that a critical period for language (CPL) leads to changes in the ways that language develops when accessible exposure is delayed.

SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION AND THE CRITICAL PERIOD

Knowledge International Journal ◽

10.35120/kij31061769m ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 31 (6) ◽

pp. 1769-1771

Author(s):

Hristina Miteva Tanaskoska

Keyword(s):

Second Language ◽

Second Language Acquisition ◽

Language Acquisition ◽

Language Learning ◽

Critical Period ◽

Second Language Learning ◽

First Language ◽

Older Learners ◽

New Community ◽

The Brain

Is there a critical period for second language acquisition? When should one begin learning a second language? These are questions that have always been present and they stiil have not become any less controversial or complex. There is not any specific age that could be determined or proclaimed to be the most appropriate. A lot of things must be taken into consideration with spesific emphasis on the goals of the learner. Whether reaching a native -like accent and proficency is the ultimate aim or obtaining a certain level that will enable an everyday communication? Since a great number of experiments and research have shown that both younger and older students can achieve high levels in their second language, a fair atribute and attention should be paid to both theories respectfully.It has been hypothesized that there is a critical period for second language acquisition as well as for first language acquisition. According to this theory there is a time in human development when the brain is predisposed for success in language learning. It is belived that some developmental changes in the brain affect the nature of language acquisition. Therefore, any language learning that occurs after the end of the critical period may not be based on innate biological structures belived to contribute to first language acquisition or second language acquisition in early childhood. The general learning abilites that the older learners depend on, are claimed to be less efective than the innate capacities available to young children. Most studies of the relationship between age of acquisition and second language development have focused on learners’pronounciation. It is frequently observed that most children from immigrant families eventually speak the language of their new community with native –like fluency and accent, while their parents quite often fall behind in this mastery even long after they had been living and working in the new community. Nevertheless, some researches argue that older learners may have one advantage: they appear to be able to learn faster in the early stages of second language learning. Age is one of the characteristics that determine the way in which an individual approaches second language learning. But the opportunities for learning (inside the classroom and outside), the motivation to learn , and individual differences in aptitude for language learning are also important determining factors that affect both rate of learning and eventual susscess in learning. It must be acknowledged that achieving native-like mastery of the second language is neither a realistic nor a neccessarilya desired goal for many second language learners in many educational contexts.

Is There a Critical Period for Second Language Acquisition? A theoretical Social Physics Approach

10.20944/preprints202103.0540.v1 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

ZhaoHong Han ◽

Gang Bao

Keyword(s):

Second Language ◽

Second Language Acquisition ◽

Language Acquisition ◽

Language Learning ◽

Critical Period ◽

Older Learners ◽

Social Physics ◽

Complex Process ◽

Nature And Nurture ◽

The critical period (CP) phenomenon in language development ranks among the 125 conundrums facing scientists in the 21st century, according to Science. While the phenomenon itself has been noncontroversial in first language acquisition, it still warrants an adequate explanation. Predicated on language acquisition as a complex process, questions among the first to be raised include: How do children accomplish this remarkable feat in such a short amount of time? And how do nature and nurture come together to influence language learning? In second language acquisition, however, both the notion of CP, albeit popular, and its empirical evidence have remained contested to this date - among the questions, whether the observed evidence counts as CP-specific and/or whether or not it warrants an isomorphic attribution to maturational constraints. Entwined in this debate are two well-established facets of inter-learner differential attainment. The first is that there exists a stark difference in ultimate attainment between younger and older learners. A second facet is the vast differences in ultimate attainment among older learners. In this article, adopting a social physics approach, we mathematically establish both the relationship between nature and nurture contributions and the presence of a critical period, and, at once, tender a parsimonious and probable theory for the twin phenomena of inter-learner differential attainment.

More is More in Language Learning: Reconsidering the Less-is-More Hypothesis

10.31234/osf.io/5wfh9 ◽

2018 ◽

Author(s):

Patricia J. Brooks ◽

Vera Kempe

Keyword(s):

Language Learning ◽

Learning Outcomes ◽

Prior Knowledge ◽

Inductive Inference ◽

First Language ◽

Cognitive Capacity ◽

Syntactic Complexity ◽

Less Is More ◽

L1 Acquisition ◽

L1 And L2

The Less-is-More hypothesis was proposed to explain age-of-acquisition effects in first language (L1) acquisition and second language (L2) attainment. We scrutinize different renditions of the hypothesis by examining how learning outcomes are affected by (1) limited cognitive capacity, (2) reduced interference resulting from less prior knowledge, and (3) simplified language input. While there is little-to-no evidence of benefits of limited cognitive capacity, there is ample support for a More-is-More account linking enhanced capacity with better L1- and L2-learning outcomes, and reduced capacity with childhood language disorders. Instead, reduced prior knowledge (relative to adults) may afford children with greater flexibility in inductive inference; this contradicts the idea that children benefit from a more constrained hypothesis space. Finally, studies of child-directed speech (CDS) confirm benefits from less complex input at early stages, but also emphasize how greater lexical and syntactic complexity of the input confers benefits in L1-attainment.

But first, let's think again!

10.1017/s1366728918000251 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 21 (5) ◽

pp. 906-907 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

NICLAS ABRAHAMSSON

Keyword(s):

Early Childhood ◽

Language Acquisition ◽

Brain Development ◽

Language Learning ◽

Critical Period ◽

Learning Ability ◽

Human Language ◽

L2 Acquisition ◽

Critical Period Hypothesis ◽

L1 Acquisition

On the basis of their review of studies, Mayberry and Kluender (2017) propose that the human language learning ability becomes severely compromised if it is not developed in tandem with brain development in early childhood, but that it functions more or less flawlessly, even in adulthood, if language acquisition had at one time proceeded according to the maturational timetable. Mayberry and Kluender therefore suggest that the critical period hypothesis (CPH) for language is unambiguously tied to the timing of L1 acquisition, but that its relevance to L2 acquisition is less clear, the implication being that the well-documented AoA effects in the SLA literature are due to non-maturational (i.e., psychological, experiential, cross-linguistic, etc.) causes.