ACADEMIC YEAR 2013-2014
YEAR ONE: INTRODUCTION TO LANGUAGE LEARNING AND TEACHING
#7: THE AGE FACTOR IN SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
1. Individual learner differences
Psycholinguistic literature abounds in materials on the role of individual learner differences
(thereafter ILDs, for short) in second language acquisition (henceforth SLA). Variables which cause
that under identical learning conditions certain students attain success, some others fail, while most
achieve average results, include general factors - such as age or sex or those related to one's
predisposition to learn - over which students have little or no control, but also more particularistic
properties - such as attitudes and motivation or anxiety states - which are subject to change. By and
large, ILDs can be divided into three types: (i) BIOLOGICAL, (ii) COGNITIVE, and (iii) SOCIO-
AFFECTIVE.
2. The age variable controversy
We begin our series of short reviews of the most influential ILDs with the age factor  a biological
variable which, though easiest both to measure and define, nevertheless remains probably the most
mystified due to folklinguistic beliefs and contradictory scientific arguments. Clearly, age is easily
pointed out as one of the major impediments to grasping the innate capacity for language
acquisition since children are known to pick up their L1 effortlessly, whereas adults, in contrast,
often have to struggle ineffectively with any new language (Ellis 1990: 43). Hence there are
widespread convictions about the optimum age for foreign language learning (such as  the younger,
the better ), as well as about advantages of some age groups over others (such as  young learners
being superior to adult learners ). However, these popular, simplistic, myths tend to confuse L1
acquisition and naturalistic SLA in childhood with language learning in adolescence and adulthood.
That way, they underestimate the crucial role of other ILDs and of the educational context. As
observed by Lightbown & Spada (1999: 60-61):
Young learners in informal language learning environments usually have more time to devote to learning
language. They often have more opportunities to hear and use the language in environments where they do not
experience strong pressure to speak fluently and accurately from the very beginning. Furthermore, their early
imperfect efforts are often praised, or at least accepted. On the other hand, older learners are often in situations
which demand more complex language and the expression of much more complicated ideas. Adults are often
embarrassed by their lack of mastery of the language and they may develop a sense of inadequacy after
experience of frustration.
3. The Critical Period Hypothesis
Is  younger really  better ? Some of the popular beliefs in this respect may be based on the
research findings concerning the CRITICAL PERIOD HYPOTHESIS (CPH), which, in the words of
Birdsong (1999: 1), states that  there is a limited developmental period during which it is possible
to acquire a language be it L1 or L2, to normal, native-like levels. Once this window of opportunity
is passed, however, the ability to learn language declines .
Research into neurophysiology and neurobiology of language carried out in the 1950 and 1960s
provided empirical support for the CPH, which claims that the ability to acquire a language
naturally and effortlessly coincides with cerebral flexibility in early childhood. The plasticity of the
brain terminates around puberty (age 10-12) as a result of LATERALIZATION. The CPH thus
1
formulated was further supported by clinical evidence; for example, damage to the left hemisphere
resulted in total recovery of language control in little children, but not in adults (Lenneberg 1967).
Let it be pointed out on this occasion that according to the CPH there is a specific and limited
time for first language acquisition. Its strong version concerns L1, not L2, and suggests that
language should be acquired by puberty - a period of specific predisposition to language acquisition
- or else it will never be learned from later exposure, as evidenced by cases of the so-called "wolf
children". The psycholinguistic implication of the strong version of the CPH for SLA is that only
those learners who begin the acquisition of L2 before the onset of puberty can attain native-like
levels of proficiency, at least in terms of pronunciation (i.e. accent). According to Ellis (2008), the
weak version, on the other hand, claims that language acquisition after puberty is possible, though it
might turn out to be more difficult or result as incomplete.
Furthermore, Singleton (1989: 137) added that  those who begin learning a second language in
childhood in the long run generally achieve a higher level of proficiency than those who begin later
in life, [so] one can say that there is some good supportive evidence and that there is no actual
counter evidence . However, according to Larsen-Freeman (2001: 13), the evidence available for an
age-related effect in SLA in is inconsistent and inconclusive. On the one hand, some research
studies seem to support the CPH. For example, Moyer (1999) found that the accent of highly
proficient learners of German, who had begun their study after puberty, was not judged native-like
despite those students strong motivation and their immersion in L2 during their course in Germany.
On the other hand, though, different studies have challenged the CPH, claiming that there does not
appear to be a marked cut-off point for the ability to acquire a L2. Even though learners ability to
pronounce L2 sounds does decline with age, that ability decreases gradually and linearly  at any
rate, there seems to be no sudden drop at puberty (Larsen-Freeman 2001: 14), while, as shown e.g.
by White & Genesee (1996), some post-pubertal learners can attain extraordinary native proficiency
levels in areas other than pronunciation - for example, syntax and lexis (cf. the well-known JOSEPH
CONRAD SYNDROME).
4. The ESL bias: the age of acquisition = "the age of arrival"
270
It has to be strongly pointed out that
260
powerful claims made about the role of age
250
in foreign language learning (here: EFL),
240
particularly the advantage of the early start,
230
are really based on studies of immigrant
220
learners in linguistic environments which
210
create conditions for naturalistic SLA (here:
200
ESL). In those studies, the age of acquisition
is taken to mean "the age of arrival". Cf. the
graph on the left (after Johnson & Newport
1989): the older the learner was at the AGE
OF ARRIVAL, the lower was his/her score on a
grammar test. In such studies (cf. Patkowski
1980; Johnson & Newport 1989), "younger"
does indeed appear to be "better".
0 Native 3 to 7 8 to 10 11 to 15 17 to 39
The age of arrival in the US and correct score on a grammar
test (adapted from Johnson & Newport 1989)
2
The age of arrival is thus an important determinant of constraints on the development of native-like
mastery of L2, only this limitation does not apply merely to the proverbial "accent", but also to
grammar competence.
5. Psycholinguistic premises and methodological observations: A recapitulation
o All age groups of learners betray similar patterns of SLA.
o Adults surpass young learners (0-12) in the rate of acquisition; older children learn
faster than younger children.
o According to Gass & Selinker (2008),  there is abundant evidence that individuals
generally do not achieve a native-like accent in a second language unless they are exposed
to it at an early age (p. 407). Young learners can in fact acquire a more native-like
proficiency (also accent) on condition that they receive the right quantity and quality of
input; however, this is not usually possible in the context of foreign language learning.
o Even if native-speaker proficiency is never achieved, young learners are still more likely to
attain higher levels of pronunciation and grammar than adults in the long run.
Summing up the discussion, let us not forget that the age variable is only one of many factors
exerting a strong effect on SLA. A major role in determining success of L2 study can also be
played, for example, by adequate opportunities for learning, strong motivation, or high linguistic
aptitude.
6. Concluding quotations
Life in dark closets, wolves' dens, forests or sadistic parents' backyards is not conducive to
good health and normal development. (Lenneberg 1967: 142)
When the goal is basic communicative ability for all students in a school setting, and when it
is assumed that the child's native language will remain the primary language, it may be more
efficient to begin second or foreign language teaching later. When learners receive only a
few hours of instruction per week, learners who start later (for example, at age 10, 11, or 12)
often catch up with those who begin earlier. (Lightbown & Spada 2001: 42; emphasis
original)
The available evidence does not license the simplistic 'younger = better in all circumstances
over any timescale' perspective [& ] Even the 'younger = better in the long run' view is only
a general tendency; an early start in [L2] is neither a strictly necessary nor a universally
sufficient condition for the attainment of native-like proficiency. (Singleton 2003: 5)
Given the conflicting evidence and contrasting viewpoints that still exist, parents,
educational institutions, or ministries of education should be exceedingly cautious about
translating what they read about the CPH research into personal practice or public policy.
(Scovel 2000: 220)
3
REFERENCES AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY
Birdsong, D. 1999.  Introduction: Whys and why nots of the Critical Period Hypothesis for second language
acquisition . In Birdsong, D. (Ed.), Second Language Acquisition and the Critical Period Hypothesis.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 1 22.
Ellis, R. 1990. Instructed Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell.
Ellis, R. 1994. The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
García Mayo, M. del P. & García Lecumberri, M. L. (Eds.), 2003. Age and the Acquisition of English as a Foreign
Language. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Gass, S. M. & Selinker, L. 2008. Second Language Acquisition. An Introductory Course. Third Edition. New York:
Routledge.
Hatch, E. M. 1983. Psycholinguistics. A Second Language Perspective. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
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". Cognitive Psychology 21: 60-99.
Lenneberg, E. 1967. Biological Foundations of Language. New York: Wiley.
Lightbown, P. M. & Spada, N. 1999. How Languages Are Learned. Second Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lightbown, P. M. & Spada, N. 2001. "Factors affecting second language learning". In Candlin, C. N. & Mercer, N.
(eds.) English Language Teaching in its Social Context. A Reader. London: Routledge. 28-43.
Long, M. H. 1988. "Maturational constraints on language development". University of Hawaii (mimeo).
Majer, J. 2010. "Second language acquisition and foreign language learning". In Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, B. (Ed.),
New Ways to Language. A
ódz
: A
ódz
University Press. 352-375.
Moyer, A. 1999. "Ultimate attainment in L2 phonology". Studies in Second Language Acquisition 21: 81-108.
Moyer, A. 2004. Age, Accent and Experience in Second Language Acquisition. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Muńoz, C. (Ed.), 2006. Age and the Rate of Foreign Language Learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Patkowski, M. 1980. "The sensitive period for the acquisition of syntax in a second language". Language Learning
30/2: 449-472.
Saville-Troike, M. 2006. Introducing Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Scovel, T. 2000. "A critical review of the critical period research". Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 20: 213-223.
Singleton, D. 2003. "Criticizing the Critical Period Hypothesis". Trinity College Dublin (mimeo).
Singleton, D. & Ryan, L. 2004. Language Acquisition. The Age Factor. 2nd Edition. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Strozer, J. L. 1994. Language Acquisition after Puberty. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
White, L. & Genesee, F. 1996. "How native is near-native? The issue of ultimate attainment in adult second language
acquisition". Second Language Research 12: 233-265.
4