The field of linguistics lacks a unified, agreed-upon theory regarding language acquisition. However, the Critical Period Hypothesis has gained a great deal of support in the linguistics community over the years, although the support is far from universal. Even so, there is strong evidence to support the CPH in L1 acquisition as well as L2. Although the L2 data is perhaps not so clear, it is compelling.
Testing the CPH in L1 acquisition is difficult to say the least, due to ethical rules. Given that human testing is all but out of the question, how can scientists properly compare L1 acquisition at different ages? When the opportunity arises, it often does by accident, as it did in the case of the young girl known as “Genie.”
Horrifically abused and isolated in her early childhood, Genie had reached the age of ten without having ever learned language. Could a child so far past her critical period still learn to speak an L1 fluently, if at all? The end results were not encouraging: Genie learned to communicate only in the most rudimentary terms, and never, even as an adult, learned to speak coherently (Secret of the Wild Child, 1997).
Genie’s case provides some concrete evidence for the CPH insofar as L1s are concerned -- there does seem to be an innate ability for people to learn language at an early age, while the brain is still developing. Once the critical period has been passed, the brain, like dried clay, becomes far less malleable. But how then does the CPH factor into L2 learning? Is there a critical period for acquiring L2, when is it, and what happens to those who attempt to learn L2 past it? There is far from a consensus on any of these questions, but the research supports a few possible answers.
Traditional thinking has held that students who learn L2s earlier in life fare better than those who start later, even as adults, and such thinking supports the CPH for L2s, although Marinova-Todd, Marshall, and Snow went about challenging such a “misconception,” citing research that illustrated that adult learners actually progress faster in learning an L2 than younger learners, even they were forced to admit the adult learners did show lower proficiency overall. This, presumably combined with the faster rates of learning, were enough to cause them to doubt the CPH in regard to L2 learners (2000).
It was this conclusion which drew the attention of other researchers, who were quick to point out the fact that CPH addressed not speed of learning, but results. Hyltenstam and Abrahamsson blasted Marinova-Todd et al. for discounting the CPH despite the fact that the adult speakers never attained native-like proficiency, which is exactly what the CPH predicts would happen (2001). In this way, comparing younger L2 learners to older ones is like comparing the tortoise and the hare: adult learners may move faster, but speed is irrelevant if one never reaches the finish line. Slow and steady truly does win the race.
In this particular race, however, finding the finish line is not so simple as one might assume. Vivian Cook noted that the goal of L2 learning is usually to emulate a native speaker, essentially defined as someone who learned the target language as L1. This goal is rarely stated explicitly, but there nonetheless, and sets an unrealistic goal for an L2 learner, who is faced with a far more daunting and complicated mental task than the L1 native. This is an unrealistic goal which teachers, particularly Language Arts teachers such as myself, should be wary of.
Cook then went on to identify what is probably the most common difference between an early L2 learner and a later one, and indeed, what may be seen as the definitive mark of an L2 speaker: their accent. Too often, the sign of a foreign accent is seen as a mark of a failure or shortcoming, when the implicit goal is to completely hide any trace of the L1 in an accentless L2. There is a famous literary example of this in Bram Stoker’s classic novel Dracula, where the count requests that Jonathan Harker tutor him in English. When informed that he already speaks fluent English, Dracula responds:
“Well I know that, did I move and speak in your London, none there are who would not recognize me as a stranger. That is not enough for me. [. . .] I am content if I am like the rest, so that no man stops if he sees me, or pause in his speaking if he hear my words, to say, ’Ha, ha! A stranger!’ I have been so long master that I will be master still -- or at least that none other should be master of me.”
Art imitates life: Stoker, as Cook would do a over century later, identified language pronunciation as a mark of being somehow “behind” or “inferior to” a native speaker, precisely because it identifies the speaker as foreign. It should be noted that Cook also cites a literary precedent for her theory: a publicized feud between authors Virginia Woolf and Joseph Conrad. The accent, a product of pronunciation and phonology, seems to be the aspect of L2 acquisition most affected by age. I have come to this conclusion through personal experience with two exemplary L2 speakers.
I first taught Olivia as a high school freshman, and later as a senior. Her speaking, reading, and writing skills were near the top of her class. It was only during a parent/teacher meeting, when I first met Olivia’s mother, that I learned that Olivia’s family had emigrated from Greece when Olivia was about five years old, and that Greek, not English, was actually Olivia’s first language. I learned this information after a moment of stunned silence on my part when Olivia (who spoke fluent English with no accent I could detect), turned to her mother (who spoke English with a moderate accent), and carried on a conversation in fluent (as far as I could tell) Greek. Here was a child who had accomplished true native-like proficiency in an L2.
Another former student of mine, Cho, came to America from South Korea about a year before entering high school. When I first encountered him during his senior year, I found him to be a diligent student and a talented writer, although self-conscious about his accent. I later learned that while he had formally studied English as a child, it was not until his family came to America that he truly had an opportunity to immerse himself in the language and use what he had learned regularly.
Both Olivia and Cho turned out to be “A” students, but because Olivia had begun her L2 acquisition while she was still in her critical period for her L1, she had an advantage over Cho, which I believe shows strong support for a critical period in L2, perhaps not too far from the L1 critical period. Of course, there were other factors at work, chief among them time; Olivia had close to a ten-year head start on Cho in L2 acquisition. Cho didn’t speak “native-like” English, nor did I expect him to. Rather, I taught him on his level, and worked to make small adjustments towards improving his use of English. My study of CPH tells me that what I was doing instinctively was the right course.
There are numerous other factors to consider beyond the critical period which will help or hinder an L2 learner’s acquisition. Certainly, living in an area where the L2 was commonly spoken would have an impact (Marinova-Todd et al., p. 25), as would being well-motivated to excel in L2 (p. 26). While nobody can reasonably ignore the impact of environment and motivation in L2 (or any) education, Genie’s story shows that even the most well-structured learning environment possible, combined with well-motivated instructors and student, cannot overcome the hurdle placed by missing the critical period (Secret of the Wild Child, 1997).
Something I personally need to look for in my future teaching practices will be to make sure education, particularly for my L2 students, is not confined to the classroom. Bringing school activities home and involving parents in the child’s L2 development have been widely successful (Peregory and Boyle, 2008). In addition, students have been well-motivated when offered opportunities to use their L2s in a meaningful, relevant way, such as through conversations with teachers or fellow students (Lightbrown and Spada, 2006). The goal seems to be to emulate genuine interaction as much as possible, and steer away from traditional classroom drills which are largely ineffective because students have no reason to be engaged. This must be my goal as a literature teacher: making lessons relevant to my students, for example, by including authors and works form their own cultures -- even suggested by the students themselves.
On the high school level, it’s most likely that my students have passed their critical period for L2. With that in mind, I need to set realistic goals for their language acquisition. They may never speak English as well as I do, but I must understand that this is not the goal -- communication is.
References
Cook, V. (1999, Summer). Going Beyond the Native Speaker in Language Teaching. TESOL Quarterly 33(2), 185-209
Garmon, L. (Producer & Director). (1997). Secret of the Wild Child [film]. Boston: WGBH
Hyltenstam, K., & Abrahamsson, N. (2001, Spring) Comments on Stefka H. Marinova- Todd, D. Bradford Marshall, amd Catherine E. Snow’s “Three Misconceptions About Age and L2 Learning.” TESOL Quarterly, 35(1), 151-176
Lightbrown, P. M., & Spada, N. (2006). How Languages are Learned. Oxford: Oxford UP.
Marinova-Todd, S., Marshall, D., & Snow, C. (2000, Spring). Three Misconceptions About Age and L2 Learning. TESOL Quarterly, 34(1), 11-34
Peregory, S. F., & Boyle, O. F. (2008). Reading, Writing, and Learning in ESL. Boston: Pearson Education.
Stoker, B. (1998) Dracula. New York: Barnes and Noble Books.
No comments:
Post a Comment