Scribd
Upload
15 views2 pages

Document (6)

I'm not going to be

Uploaded by

ru79ff
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
15 views2 pages

Document (6)

I'm not going to be

Uploaded by

ru79ff
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Critical Age for First Language Learning

The Critical Period Hypothesis (CPH) suggests that children are best suited to learn a first
language during a specific developmental window. Their ability to acquire language declines as
they grow older. While there is some variation in the estimates, many studies propose that the
critical period for first language acquisition ends by age five, during the pre-teen years, or as late
as eighteen. The term “critical period” can also refer to the optimal time for language acquisition
after puberty, though this is debated among researchers. Common sayings about language learning
often reflect the idea that children have a natural advantage over adults: “Children learn languages
more easily than adults,” “If you start learning a language too late, you’ll never fully master it,”
and “Children are like sponges for language.” This essay will explore the concept of the critical
age for first language acquisition (Singleton, D., 2005).

Research by Mayberry and Kluender (2017) indicates that delays in first language (L1)
acquisition affect brain representation and efficiency more significantly than delays in second
language (L2) acquisition. They argue that the first language has a critical period for acquisition,
while second language acquisition does not. However, other theories suggest that early first
language acquisition can mitigate age-related effects on second language learning. Still, both first
and second language acquisitions have critical windows during which learning is most effective.
For instance, children generally learn language patterns more naturally and efficiently than adults,
due to their brains’ greater adaptability to linguistic input.

Though Mayberry and Kluender’s theory is valuable, there is a counterargument that both
first and second languages experience critical period effects, though these effects may be less
pronounced for second languages (Mayberry & Kluender, 2017).

One challenge in studying the critical period for language acquisition is the difficulty of
finding subjects who reach adolescence without exposure to language. Individuals in this situation
may have experienced extreme conditions, such as neglect or abuse, which complicates
conclusions about language development. The case of Genie, a child who was isolated from
language during critical developmental years, is often cited as an example
of the consequences of delayed language exposure. Similarly, deaf children who do not
learn sign language in early childhood may lack a functional first language for several years. Their
proficiency in sign language, even after exposure, may be less fluent compared to children who
are exposed to sign language from birth (Reynolds & Fletcher-Janzen, 2004).

In conclusion, while there is compelling evidence for a critical period for first language
learning, the ability to learn a first language is still a complex process influenced by a variety of
factors. Children who begin language acquisition at an early age benefit from this developmental
window, but even those who begin later can still acquire language with sufficient time and effort.
Language learning, though challenging, is always worthwhile and can be deeply rewarding. As the
motivational speaker Les Brown once said, “If it’s hard, then do it hard!” Language acquisition,
even at lower proficiency levels, can be a fun, enriching, and useful experience.

References:

• Singleton, D. (2005, November 18). The critical period hypothesis: A coat of many colours. IRAL
- International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching.

• Mayberry, R. I., & Kluender, R. (2017). Rethinking the critical period for language: New insights
into an old question from American Sign Language. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 20(1), 1-13.
https:// doi.org/10.1017/S1366728916000225

• Reynolds, L., & Fletcher-Janzen, E. (2004). Genie (feral child). Wikipedia.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Genie_(feral_child)#CITEREFReynoldsFletcher-Janzen2004

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy