Tom Scovel writes, “The CPH [critical period hypothesis] is conceivably the most contentious issue in SLA because there is disagreement over its exact age span; people disagree strenuously over which facets of language are affected; there are competing explanations for its existence; and, to top it off, many people don’t believe it exists at all” (113). Proposed by Wilder Penfield and Lamar Roberts in 1959, the Critical Period Hypothesis (CPH) argues that there is a specific period of time in which people can learn a language without traces of the L1 (a so-called “foreign” accent or even L1 syntactical features) manifesting in L2 production (Scovel 48). If a learner’s goal is to sound “native,” there may be age-related limitations or “maturational constraints” as Kenneth Hyltenstam and Niclas Abrahamsson call them, on how “native” they can sound. Reducing the impression left by the L1 is certainly possible after puberty, but eliminating that impression entirely may not be possible.
Kenji Hakuta et al. explains that the relationship between age and L1 interference in L2 production is really not up for debate:
“The diminished average achievement of older learners is supported by personal anecdote and documented by empirical evidence….What is controversial, though, is whether this pattern meets the conditions for concluding that a critical period constrains learning in a way predicted by the theory” (31).
Some learners manage to overcome the “constraints” that Scovel believes are “probably accounted for by neurological factors that are genetically specified in our species” (114), but these learners are exceptional rather than the rule. It may be biology; it may be due to something else. The debate will continue, but evidence seems to indicate that the older learners become, the more difficult complete acquisition can be.
Media
“David Birdsong, Looking Inside and Beyond the Critical Period Hypothesis.” YouTube, uploaded by IWL Channel, 09 May 2016, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Bo0C4dj7Mw.
Application
Instructors should consider taking the CPH into account when assessing their students’ oral communication in the target language. When “maturational constraints” are a potential concern, it seems more fair for instructors to weight comprehension more heavily than nativeness. A thorough understanding of the CPH can also help instructors to counteract adult learners’ “self-handicapping” by helping the learners understand that, in spite of constraints due to aging, they are still capable of acquiring many–if not most–aspects of the target language.
Bibliography
Hakuta, Kenji, et al. “Critical Evidence: A Test of the Critical-Period Hypothesis for Second-Language Acquisition.” Psychological Science, vol. 14, no. 1, 2003, pp. 31–38. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/40063748.
Hyltenstam, Kenneth, and Niclas Abrahamsson. “Comments on Stefka H. Marinova-Todd, D. Bradford Marshall, and Catherine E. Snow’s ‘Three Misconceptions about Age and L2 Learning’: Age and L2 Learning: The Hazards of Matching Practical ‘Implications’ with Theoretical ‘Facts.’” TESOL Quarterly, vol. 35, no. 1, 2001, pp. 151–170. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/3587863.
Nemer, Randa. “Critical Period Hypothesis.” Prezi, 04 Dec. 2013, https://prezi.com/zzuch40ibrlq/critical-period-hypothesis-sla/#.
Scovel, Tom. Learning New Languages. Heinle & Heinle, 2001.