The Age Factor in Foreign Language Acquisition
Kara Mac Donald, Sydney University, kmacd@rocketmail.com
del Pilar García Mayo, M., & García Lecumberri, M.-L. (2004). Age and the Acquisition of English as a Foreign Language.
Age and the Acquisition of English as a Foreign Language examines early foreign language (FL) instruction. The studies indicate that early formal FL instruction does not produce better achievement in that language. As such the book alters beliefs about the FL proficiency and professional legitimacy of NNESTs on the basis of the age when they commenced English study. An NNEST who commenced study at an early age should not be viewed as more eligible for employment based on the perception that his or her proficiency level is closer to the native speaker model. This book is valuable in assisting NNESTs in advocating for a legitimate position in the English teaching classroom.
In chapter 1, David Singleton argues, by questioning other studies (Curtiss, 1988; Newport, 1984), that the Critical Period Hypothesis (CPH) is insufficient to explain FL acquisition. He insists that the interplay of numerous age-related factors determines FL achievement. Singleton contests the notion that age is the sole determining element. His work alters the assumption that an NNEST’s FL acquisition potential may have been less if study was commenced at a mature age.
Next Jonathan Leather examines the CPH and FL pronunciation acquisition, explaining that L2 speech is a function of linguistic, social, psychological, and phonological factors. Like Singleton, he argues that the learner’s age, social context, motivations, and previous language knowledge must be taken into account to understand his or her ultimate L2 perception and production potential. It is unreasonable to evaluate an NNEST’s pronunciation based on the age of instruction, as early exposure does not correlate to a “near native” accent.
Stefka Marinova-Todd discredits the idea of the CPH in the third chapter by examining FL grammar acquisition. He found that adult learners can acquire FL language skills similar to those of children, and sometimes outperform them (Bongaerts, 1999; Birdsong 1999). Consequently, his study challenges the notion that an NNEST may be less competent in grammatical usage than another who commenced study at an early age.
Next, Jasone Cenoz’s study compares learners of different ages (4-11 years) exposed to the same amount of formal English instruction and learners of the same age exposed to different amounts of instruction. Cenoz indicates older learners achieve higher levels of proficiency more quickly than do younger learners. He argues that the rationale for offering an FL at school is to take advantage of the high motivation and positive attitudes of younger learners. This contradicts beliefs that early formal FL instruction is more appropriate for cognitive reasons. By adjusting beliefs, the study assists in legitimizing the English proficiency of NNESTs who began study at a mature age.
In chapter 5, Maria del Pilar García Mayo explains that early exposure does not increase FL achievement, as older learners outperformed younger learners in her study. She found that a higher cognitive development correlated to a higher level of metalinguistics awareness. Older learners were more capable of identifying errors and correcting them. This study weakens assumptions about the advantage of early FL instruction based on cognitive reasons, legitimizing NNESTs’ proficiency regardless of the age of exposure to instruction.
Maria Luisa García Lecumberri and Francisco Gallardo, in the sixth chapter, examine the relationship between age (4-11 years) and vowel and consonant perception skills. Their results support other studies (Cummins, 1981; Fullana & Muñoz, 1999), identifying that older learners achieve a more target-like pronunciation. They conclude that early exposure is not a factor that facilitates FL pronunciation acquisition in a formal context. Like Leather’s work, this study reaffirms the fact that early exposure to instruction is not linked to a near-native accent. NNESTs’ pronunciation achievement is not bound by the age of instruction.
In chapter 7, David Lasagabaster and Aintzane Doiz discuss writing, evaluating learners (12-18 years old) who had the same amount of instruction but who had begun learning English at different ages. Like
Carmen Muñoz’s study in chapter 8 demonstrates that older students outperformed younger learners in a formal context because they were less affected by the limited exposure constraints of the school curriculum and benefited from explicit teaching methods. This finding deconstructs the belief that an NNEST’s exposure to instruction at an older age is cognitively disadvantageous.
The ninth study, conducted by Mia Victori and Elsa Tragant, looks at learner strategies. They found that older learners used a wider range of strategies that become more complex, relying less on memorization. Their work weakens the rationale for early FL exposure and strengthens the perception of competency among NNESTs who were exposed to instruction at a mature age.
The book educates TESOL professionals and school administrators to understand that NNESTs are as qualified as L1 English-speaking teachers. In addition, it explains that the age of FL study does not control an NNEST’s proficiency and professional competence. This book provides an overview of essential current research, which revises beliefs about age and FL acquisition in a formal setting. The studies indicate that exposure to English instruction at an early age does not foster a higher level of proficiency; the authors discuss the success of mature learners in a wide range of areas: syntax, phonology, writing, oral, and learning skills. The book’s slender spine belies the wealth of information that it offers about the potential achievement of NNESTs who commenced FL study at a mature age.
The authors acknowledge the limitations of their work. Although younger learners may not be the best FL learners, this does not suggest early FL exposure in primary schools is not beneficial in many ways. The authors also emphasize the need for further longitudinal studies, and studies with other populations, to support their findings.
References
Birdsong, D. (1999). Introduction: Whys and why nots of the critical period hypothesis. In D. Birdsong (Ed.), Second language acquisition and the critical period hypothesis (pp. 1-22).
Bongaerts, T. (1999). Ultimate attainment in L2 pronunciation: The case of very advanced late L2 learners. In D. Birdsong (Ed.), Second language acquisition and the critical period hypothesis (pp.133-59).
Cummins, J. (1981). Age on arrival and immigrant second language learning in
Curtiss, S. (1988). Abnormal language acquisition and the modality of language. In F. J. Newmeyer (Ed.), Linguistics: The
Fullana, N., & Muñoz, C. (1999). The development of auditory discrimination skills in EFL learners of different ages. Paper presented at the XXIIII AEDEAN Conference,
NNEST Newsletter May 2006 Volume 8 Number 1: Table of Contents
