YEAR TWO Second Language Acquisition ACADEMIC YEAR 2011-2012
#10: 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 individualistic 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
The review of the most important ILDs begins with the age factor - a biological variable which appears to be the
most mystified due to folk beliefs and contradictory scientific arguments (Hatch 1983: 188). Age is easily pointed
out as one of the major impediments to language acquisition since children are known to pick up their L1
effortlessly, whereas adults 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 myths tend to confuse L1 acquisition and naturalistic SLA in childhood with foreign
language learning in adolescence and adulthood. That way, they clearly underestimate the crucial role of other ILDs
and of the educational context. As observed by Lightbown & Spada (1999: 60-61; emphasis added):
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 (emphasis
added).
In the 1950 and 1960s empirical support was provided for the claim that the ability to acquire a language naturally
and effortlessly coincides with cerebral plasticity in early childhood. The flexibility of the brain was believed to
terminate around the age of puberty (age 10-12) as a result of lateralization of the language function in the left
hemisphere. These findings were 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).
According to the CPH, there is a specific and limited time for first language acquisition. Its strong version concerns
L1, not L2, and it 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 (1994), 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 incomplete.
1
In the 1970s and 1980s the CPH came under criticism. For example, Long (1988) suggested that the critical age for
acquiring a native accent is ca. 6 years, whereas the age of puberty only marks a critical period for the acquisition of
L2 grammar. On the one hand, some of the later 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, however, 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, 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; cf.
White & Genesee 1996).
4. The ESL bias: the age of acquisition = "the age of arrival"
270
It has to be strongly pointed out that powerful
260
claims made about the role of age in foreign
250
language learning (here: EFL), particularly the
240
advantage of the early start, are really based on
230
studies of immigrant learners in linguistic
220
environments which create conditions for
210
naturalistic SLA (here: ESL). In those studies, the
200
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)
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.
The age variable is only one of many factors exerting a strong effect on SLA. We must not forget that, for example,
high linguistic aptitude, strong motivation or adequate opportunities for learning can also play their role in
determining success of L2 study.
2
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)
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
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.
3