Research into Early Second Language Acquisition

(Lang, P. Issues in LA & Lang Edu 2002 Page 17 - 63)

Paper Riview
Mata Kuliah Teori Pemerolehan dan Pendidikan Bahasa
Prof. Dr. Sugirin, Ph.D.

Susiati Abas, S.Pd.I (15706251035)

Angga Trio Sanjaya, S.Pd. (15706251055)

LT B

PRODI LINGUISTIK TERAPAN

PROGRAM PASCASARJANA
UNIVERSITAS NEGERI YOGYAKARTA
2015
 Chapter I
Introduction

A. Background of the Problem

The aim of this chapter is to give a critical overview of the research issues
related to early modern language programmes. As it seems to be widely accepted
that children are better at second language acquisition (SLA) than later starters, it
is important to look into the theoretical background and the empirical evidence
related to this claim to see to what extent and how they underpin this assumption.
Scholarly discussions on the benefits of early-start programmes focus on
three major research areas: (1) the existence of the critical period hypothesis
(CPH), (2) immersion programmes in second language contexts, where the
dominant language of the social environment coincides with the target language of
the educational programme, and (3) foreign language programmes, where the
target language is not used for everyday purposes in the social context and its use
is mostly limited to the classroom.
Therefore, I will follow this train of thought: first, I will provide a short
overview of the theoretical explanations for the existence of a critical period
covering the neurolinguistic, cognitive, socialpsychological and linguistic
explanations. Then, I will look at the research from three perspectives: how
empirical SLA studies support ‘the younger the better’; ‘the older the better’; ‘the
younger the better.

B. Formulation of the Problem

1. How the critical period hypothesis?
2. How Critical Period in SLA?
3. How SLA research background to the critical period hypothesis?
4. How Conclusions concerning the CPH and their relevance for early foreign
language programmes?
5. How pedagogical considerations?
6. How early foreign language programmes in the 1990s: Issues and
implications?
7. How implications for future research?
C. Research Purposes
1. Describe the critical period hypothesis.
2. Describe the Critical Period in SLA.
3. Describe the SLA research background to the critical period hypothesis
4. Describe Conclusions concerning the CPH and their relevance for early
foreign language Programmes.
5. Describe the Pedagogical considerations.
6. Describe Early foreign language in the 1990s Programmes: Issues and
implications.
7. Describe Implications for future research.
 Chapter II
Discussion

1. The critical period hypothesis

There are three important points in this section, first; The term 'critical period'
by Ellis, second; The term 'critical period' according to Scovel, and third; Three
different angles.
The term ‘critical period’ is used to refer to the general phenomenon of
declining competence over increasing age of exposure and is used to state that there is
a period when language acquisition can take place naturally and effortlessly, but after
a certain age the brain is no longer able to process language input in this way (Ellis
via Lang 2002:19). The most frequently understood period referred to is reflected in
Scovel’s definition:
In brief, the critical period hypothesis is the notion that language is
best learned during the early years of childhood, and that after about the first
dozen years of life, everyone faces certain constraints in the ability to pick up
a new language (Lang 2002:19-20).

The critical period issue has attracted interest from researchers, and while
some argue that even its existence is controversial, others try to prove its effects.
Three different standpoints can be identified in the literature to illustrate the
controversy. The first position states that only children can attain native-like
pronunciation in SLA (e.g., Dulay, Burt & Krashen; Scovel; Larsen-Freeman & Long,
Johnson via Lang 2002:20)); the second finds that the data are ambiguous: ‘…one can
say that there is some good supportive evidence and that there is no actual
counterevidence’ (Singleton via Lang 2002:20). The third position denies the
existence of the critical period and states that ‘…the learning situation in combination
with age-related affective and cognitive factors could account for some of the
variation in success between child and adult L2 learning’.

2. Critical Period in SLA (Theoretical explanations)

Explanations for the existence of a critical period in SLA have focused on
roughly four theoretical perspectives: (a) neurolinguistic explanation; (b) cognitive
explanation; (c) social-psychological explanation; and (d) linguistic explanation.
These areas of inquiry will be explored successively.
a. The neurological argument
Penfield and Roberts states that there are differences between childhood
better with adults. Children learn languages better  child's brain's ability to
adaptation (plasticity) is better coupled Recovery brain to left brain injury is also
faster. Lang argued, that in which they argued that the child’s greater ability to
learn a language was explained by the greater plasticity of its brains. The evidence
cited referred to the child’s capacity to recover after injury of the speech areas of
the left hemisphere, whereas adults often did not recover normal speech (Lang,
2002:22).
Lenneberg suggested a process of 'lateralization'. The specific function of
the right brain and the left began to differ in the age of 2 years until puberty, is
called lateralization. The end of this age 'automatic acquisition' problematic
language. The end of the age of puberty, learning to recognize the effort work.
Foreign accent was not easy to overcome at this age. the left and right hemispheres
of the human brain become specialized for different functions roughly between the
age of two and puberty. This process is called lateralisation, and according to the
hypothesis, the end of lateralisation coincides with the child’s puberty, after which
language acquisition becomes more problematic. Lenneberg has been frequently
cited as the first researcher to refer to a neurological basis for a critical period for
language learning, although his reference was quite short and he advanced the
weak version of the hypothesis:
Most individuals of average intelligence are able to learn a second
language after the beginning of their second decade, although the incidence of
‘languagelearning-blocks’ rapidly increases after puberty. Also automatic
acquisition from mere exposure to a given language seems to disappear after
this age, and foreign languages have to be taught and learned through a
laboured effort. Foreign accents cannot be overcome easily after puberty.
However, a person can learn to communicate in a foreign language at the age
of forty. (Lenneberg via Lang, 2002:22).

Scovel (Lang, 2002:22) there are three claims, namely (1) Native speaker
can be easily identified, (2) failure disebakan accent lateralization period is
completed, (3) critical period just to learn 'phonology.
 …hemispheric specialization, the proportionately rapid growth of the brain
compared to body growth, increased production of neurotransmitters, the process
of myelinization, the proliferation of nerve pathways in the cerebral cortex, and
the speeding up of synaptic transmission… (Scovel via Lang, 2002:22)

Sokolik (Lang, 2002:23) proposed 'Connectionist Models, the Opposition

children and adults in the SLA due to decreased NGF. Children are expected to
have higher levels of NGF, which may be responsible for the difference in
learning rate. In a hypothetical example, a three-year-old English speaking child
and a 25-year-old English-speaking parent are in France, they are both acquiring
Feature Xf of French. The younger learner is hypothesised to acquire feature Xf
after 10 exposures to the data, while the adult takes 55 epochs to reach the same
point (Sokolik via Lang, 2002:22)
Jacobs and Schumann (Lang, 2002:23) states through the viewpoint
'neurobiological'. Otto describes the Target Language Descriptors (TLDs) that
TLD free (acquisition) and TLDs (learn) to resolve the conflict see input and
additional input through computerized simulations (Lang, 2002:22).
Bialystok (Lang, 2002:26) reviews two more studies looking into the
representation of two languages in the brain: in one of the two similar results were
found to the Kim et al. study, while in the second no differences were found in the
representation of ealry or late acquired languages. She points out two major
problems. First, the term of ‘bilingual’ is used in such enquiries without any
“acknowledgement of the multiplicity of meanings and degrees it entails” .
As for empirical research supporting claims of favourable outcomes as a
result of these innovative techniques, so far none has been found.
b. The cognitive explanation
Singleton (1989) critical period Piaget: Pertama language dependent
cognitive growth; accept the idea of a decrease in learning the language after
puberty; and advantage of greater cognitive maturity. Dulay, Burt and Krashen, ie
differences in the cognitive effect, but does not explain why children outperform
adults. Wong Fillmore, more children benyak access in the SLA. Larsen-Freeman
and Long 'Trade-off': adults abstract thinking in problem solving, LAD ability to
SLA. Skehan children rely on the memory base, adult learning rule base.
Conclusions Children and adults involve different processes, ie, consciously or
 LAD plus base memory while adult general problem-solving ability (Lang,
2002:26-28).
c. Social explanations
Brown suggest children are not cognitive enough to have an attitude
toward race, culture and language developed. Schumann Acculturation Model /
pidginization. Success in the SLA depends on the depth and quality of contact
between people and culture of the target language. Singlenton, children at the age
of ten tend to be integrative. Krashen, 'Filters allow Afektif' children and adults
are not the natural achievement. Nikolov, socio-psychological, does not provide
an explanation for the existence of a critical period 'phonological' (Lang, 2002:28)
The socio-psychological explanations, however, do not provide an
explanation for the existence of the phonological critical period. One plausible
answer may be that some adults prefer accented second language proficiency, and
they simply do not wish to sound like native speakers (Nikolov via Lang,
2002:31).
d. Linguistic Explanations
Hatch argued that children are usually involved in various types of
interactions than adults. (Children get a lot of input, but the input is less complex
than adults). While others argue that older learners have an advantage because
they are better at getting the right input. Johnson & Newport explains Number of
inputs is also claimed to be greater for the children in the study based on the
difference between the 'coming of age' and 'long-lived' in the host environment.
Asher explains the role play and interaction with caregivers and peers. 'Total
Physical methods responsenya', children acquire a second language more
efficiently than adults because they get to learn the language through play and
physical activity.
In short, the linguistic explanation for the existence of a critical period
reveals many truths but not enough to explain the difference in a child or adult in
the SLA. So far considered a neuro-biological, cognitive, socio-psychological
explanation and linguistic more effective to distinguish a child or adult. Images
are complex and vague: there appears to be sufficient evidence for the existence of
a critical period for the SLA but the general claim that children are better at SLA
in the long term seems to be supported.
3. SLA research background to the critical period hypothesis
a. ‘The younger the better’
Rixon said earlier in the SLA can be beneficial simply because of the
experience of parents, that the majority of children pick up the language very
quickly and easily when exposed to it.
Singleton said discussion of the notion of a critical period for the SLA can
be grouped around four different positions (Lang, 2002:33). The first position,
'The younger the better'. Three foreign language study, "the host environment and
negative relationships." Another problematic point testing,
Evidence that weaken 'the younger the better' by critical statements
mentioned above, and two studies cited by Singleton according to which 'the
French in Scottish primary schools' and 'Ireland in the elementary school program'
did not produce a great success.
b. ‘The older the better’
The older language learners more successful and efficient than the younger
children.
This position is supported by three types of research:
(1) experimental studies based on formal instruction;
(2) the study of a second language program teaching elementary school
(3) a second language immersion program
c. ‘The younger the better in some areas’
Joseph explained that eksen authentic Genrad can not be obtained unless
the SLA began before the critical age. Another possibility is on Scovel, said that
anyone can pass themselves off as native speakers if they have acquired the
language after puberty. Singleton, younger learners definitely more efficient than
the older learners in the domain of phonetics / phonology.
d. ‘The younger the better in the long run’
Children seem much more successful than adults in obtaining the target
language phonological system, and many of them eventually reach the original
accent.
Dulay explained Adults progress more quickly than children in the field of
syntax and morphology, at least in the early stages of the process. Snow and
Hoefnagel-Höhle stated in their study tested a series of English-language learners
who live in the Netherlands. Testing techniques involved Dutch pronunciation,
auditory discrimination, morphology, sentence repetition, sentence translation,
assessment sentences, vocabulary, comprehension of stories and storytelling. The
test results showed little difference agerelated in relation to the phonetic or
phonological skills, teen reaches the highest value.
However, early gains diminishing to stay longer in the host environment,
and some younger learners overtaking older.
 Chapter III
Conclusion

It is generally accepted that children should have access to foreign languages from an
early age. The arguments for early instruction can be summarized around the following
points: (1) the lesson to be learnt from neuroscience and psychology suggests that early
stimulation is generally favourable (in the area of sports, music and arts this fact has long
been accepted); (2) studies in child and adult SLA research indicate that the length of
exposure may influence SLA in a favourable way: the longer the exposure to language
learning, the better; (3) the general curriculum for learners expands with age: one of the areas
of knowledge that could be acquired early is second languages; (4) our world is becoming
more international every day, child SLA can encourage the early understanding and
appreciation of different cultures, values and the development of positive attitudes towards
the speakers of the target language; (5) bilingual studies have revealed that multicompetence
has an effect on metalinguistic awareness and other parts of cognition; therefore, early SLA
may add a new dimension to general cognitive development, may influence the mother
tongue in a favourable way through raising awareness and may encourage the acquisition of
other languages (Batley et al., 1993).
Arguments against an early start are also to be considered. One of the traditional
worries concerns the negative influence of child SLA in the host environment but research on
early bilingualism has revealed that there is
…an impressive array of evidence accumulating that argues plainly against the
common-sense notion that becoming bilingual – having two linguistic systems within
one’s brain – naturally divides a person’s cognitive resources and reduces efficiency
of thought or language. Instead, one now can put forth a very strong argument that
there are definite cognitive and language advantages to being bilingual. (Lambert via
Lang, 2002:53)
Other negative outcomes in child SLA in the classroom may result from inadequate
conditions. Among these conditions the most crucial ones are related to the following areas:
(1) social factors, among them attitudes towards the target language, its speakers and
language learning in general; (2) educational factors, such as the content and methodology of
the programmes, physical surroundings, continuity, scheduling, frequency, and last but not
least, the teacher. Unfortunately, it is common practice that the younger the learners are, the
least educated the teacher may be. Although these issues are discussed in detail in other
sources (Brumfit et al., 1991; Rixon, 1992), further elaboration seems necessary, as some of
these have emerged as most significant in recent research on early foreign language
instruction.
If any of the requirements are missing, second language instruction should not begin
at an early age: a negative experience may adversely affect children’s attitude to the target
language and to language learning in general.

References

Lang, Peter. 2002. Issues in English Language Education. New York: European Academic
Publishers