Universidad de Santiago de Chile

Facultad de Humanidades
Departamento de Lingüística y Literatura
Pedagogía en Inglés / Licenciatura en Educación en Inglés
Paradigmas Lingüísticos

Importance of the Critical Period in

First and Second Language Acquisition

Students: Stephanie Castillo

Marisol Espinoza
Teacher: Horacio Miranda
Date: November 23th, 2016
 Table of Contents

Introduction………………………………………………………………………… p. 3
Theoretical Framework…………………………………………………………… p. 4
Critical Period Hypothesis.……………………………………………………….. p. 5
-History…………………………………………………………………………… p. 5
-Observational studies………………………………………………………….. p. 6
-Deaf and Feral Children…………………………………………………….. p. 6
-Behavioral Approaches………………………………………..................... p. 6
-Universal Grammar………………………………………………………….. p. 7
-Genie’s Case……………………………………………………………………. p. 8
-Critical Period hypotheses and Second Language Acquisition……………. p. 9
Conclusions………………………………………………………………………… p. 11
Bibliography and Works Cited……………………………………………………. p. 12

2
 Introduction

This paper hopes to attend theories and studies related to the Critical Period
Hypothesis (CPH) and its importance in first and second language acquisition/learning.
Our main purpose is to report the different aspects and elements of CPH in terms of
history, where we will explain the first proposal of this theory and its authors;
observational studies, in which we pretend to demonstrate through some cases (deaf
and feral children) and approaches, such as behaviourism and universal grammar, how
critical period works. Also, to support the critical period hypothesis, we are going to focus
in a particular case of a feral child called Genie’s case, that will demonstrate the
relevance of this theory in L1 acquisition. Finally, we would like to put some emphasis in
the CPH in Second Language Acquisition, and to show that this hypothesis also applies
in this process.

The idea of this paper is to demonstrate why the critical period is an important
issue in language acquisition, even in learners who want to achieve an L2. In order to
support our thesis, we will base on different theories and observational cases. The
Critical Period Hypothesis claims the existence of a specific period in which human
beings can acquire the language, which fluctuates from birth to puberty. This idea
suggests that if a child does not have contact with language in that period, no language
will be spoken. Everything mentioned before will be explain in full through the
development of this paper.

3
 Theoretical Framework

There are many theories and studies that try to understand why we can have a
language while other animals cannot. Some of them consider historical aspects, such as
the Divine Source Theory; relate our capacity of speaking to nature as in The Natural
Sound Source Theory; attribute it to our necessity of social interaction; or to our physical
adaptations, especially the ones related to our oral cavity. All of them give a possible
answer, but there are two that take into account what for many people is more important:
our brain and genes.

These theories propose that the human capacity to speak and develop a
language is in our genes. Besides, since our brain is lateralized, “it has special functions
in each of the two hemispheres” (Yule, 2014, p. 6). This capacity of controlling the human
body with different and specific parts of the brain can explain why some of our actions
are closer than others. For instance, those functions that control the movements involved
in complex vocalization (speaking) and object manipulation are very close to each other
in the left hemisphere while creativity and holistic thinking can be found in the right
hemisphere.

Some theorists used these approaches to develop their own theories on language
use and acquisition; such as Noam Chomsky, who proposes the existence of a Universal
Grammar and an Inner capacity to language; Burrhus F. Skinner, who wrote his book on
Verbal Behavior; among others.

These studies were also used in the field of First and Second Language
Acquisition, proposing ideas related to how we get the language, during which time we
are most likely to acquire a language, or the implications that the development or not
development of a language can have in a human being.

4
 Critical Period Hypothesis

First of all, we would like to start defining the critical period concept with Annette
M. B. de Groot and Judith F. Kroll definition: It refers to a period of time during the life
cycle when there is greater sensitivity to certain types of environmental stimuli than other
times (De Groot & Kroll, 2014). To put it more simply, the critical period hypothesis claims
that exists an ideal age to acquire language in a linguistically rich environment, and that
after this period the language acquisition becomes much more difficult and effortful.

1. History:

The critical period hypothesis, first proposed by Wilder Penfield and Lamar
Roberts in their book Speech and Brain Mechanisms (1959) but later popularized by Eric
Lenneberg with Biological Foundations of Language (1967), states that there is a time
where the human being can acquire a language. It relies on the neuroplasticity of the
brain. If language acquisition does not occur within this period, from birth until puberty,
some aspects of language can be learned but full mastery cannot be achieved. “Because
of progressive lateralization of cerebral functions and ongoing myelination in Broca’s
area and throughout the cortex, the neural substrate that is required for language
learning is not fully available after the closure of the critical period” (Birdsong, 2009, p.
3). Lenneberg discussed aspects of the physical maturation of the brain, but accentuate
that knowledge of the anatomical basis of language development was insufficient to
make the search for a specific neural explanation. However, he argued that should be
considered the way the many parts of the brain interact rather than specific structures
(De Groot & Kroll, 2014, p. 23)

Some recent studies have suggested that if a critical period does exist, it may be
due to the delayed development of the prefrontal cortex in human. Researchers have
also suggested that this delayed development and an associated delayed in the
development of cognitive control may facilitate convention learning, allowing young
children to learn language far more easily that older children and cognitively mature
adults. This pattern is unique to human among mammalian (and primate) species, and
may explain why humans—and not chimpanzees—are so adept at learning language.

5
2. Observational Studies:

The theories of Penfield and Roberts (1959) and Lenneberg (1967) stem form L1
and brain damage studies where children who suffer impairment before puberty usually
recover and (re-)develop normal language. Meanwhile adults rarely recover totally, and
often do not regain verbal abilities beyond the point reached five months after
impairment. In both theories, we can see that children have a neurological advantage in
learning languages, asserting that language acquisition occurs primarily during
childhood, because the brain loses plasticity after a certain age. The brain becomes rigid
and fixed, also loses the ability for adaptation and reorganization, causing language (re-
)learning more difficult. Penfield and Roberts (1959) say that children under nine can
learn up to three languages because an early exposure to different languages activates
a reflex in the brain that allows them to switch between languages without confusion. On
the other hand, Lenneberg says that if the language is not learned by puberty, it cannot
be learned in a normal, functional sense (1967).

2.1. Deaf and Feral Children

Evidence of a biologically determined Critical Period of L1 are cases of deaf and

feral children. The case of “Isabelle”, is of a deaf child who was with her deaf-mute
mother until she was the age of six and a half. The consequences where she had no
language skills, but through systematic specialist training she could acquire normal
language abilities. On the other hand, we have Genie’s case, who was a feral child. Feral
children are not exposed to language during their infancy or childhood because they
were brought up in the wild, in isolation and/or confinement, as her case. She was
abused because of the deprivement of social interaction since she was born until the age
of thirteen. Her father isolated her, kept her strapped to a potty chair and she was
completely without language. So, this case was the opportunity to test the critical period
theory, and we are going to focus on this later.

2.2. Behavioural approaches

These approaches state that languages are learned as any other behaviour,
through conditioning. Operant conditioning forms connections with the environment
through interaction, according to Skinner (1957) and, alongside O. Hobart Mowrer (1960)
applies the concepts to language acquisition. According to Mowrer, the language is
acquired through imitation of “language models” who must have an emotional link to the
learner (like parents), so the imitation then brings a pleasant feeling which function as
positive reinforcement. But, because the new connections between behaviour and the
environment are formed throughout life, it is possible to gain new skills at any age

6
(including languages). So, in order to explain the differences between children and adults
in terms of language learning, children create countless new connections daily, and may
handle the process more effectively than adults.

A problematic of the behaviourist approach is that all learning occurs through the
same processes. And a more general problem is that every sentence anybody voices is
an original combination of words, never previously uttered, therefore a language cannot
consist only of words learned through repetition; the brain must contain the innate
capacity of creating endless sentences from a limited number of words, as Chomsky
postulates with the universal grammar

2.3. Universal grammar

According to Chomsky (1965), we all possess an inner capacity to acquire a

language since they all share a set of syntactic rules and principles. “Universal grammar,
then, consists of a set of unconscious constraints that let us decide whether a sentence
is correctly formed. This mental grammar is not necessarily the same for all languages.
But according to Chomskyian theorists, the process by which, in any given language,
certain sentences are perceived as correct while others are not, is universal and
independent of meaning.” (Tool Module: Chomsky’s Universal Grammar, n.d.)

Singleton and Newport (2004) demonstrated the function of UG in their study of

'Simon'. Simon learned ASL as his L1 from parents who had learned it as an L2 after
puberty and provided him with imperfect models. Results showed Simon learned normal
and logical rules and was able to construct an organized linguistic system, despite being
exposed to inconsistent input. Chomsky developed UG to explain L1 acquisition data,
but maintains it also applies to L2 learners who achieve near-native fluency not
attributable solely to input and interaction (Chomsky, 1965).

Although, there is no indication of an optimal age for Second Language

Acquisition, this theory implies that younger children can learn easily than older learners.
This also indicates that children can learn several languages simultaneously as long as
they are exposed to sufficient language samples. Nevertheless, Simon’s parents having
linguistic abilities and following these age-related predictions, could learn ASL during
their adulthood, but never reached complete fluency.

7
3. Genie’s Case

One of the most remarkable cases regarding the Critical Period, is the one of
Genie, a girl who became known when admitted to a children’s hospital in Los Angeles
in 1970. Genie was confined to a small room and spent most of her life in this room, often
tied to a potty chair. Her father was intolerant to any kind of noise and had beaten her
every time she made a noise, even a little one, when she was a child. She was rarely
spoken to and there were no television or radio that could provide some kind of input of
the language to her. Her mother was the only one who Genie had contact with, but she
was forbidden to spend time with more than a few minutes to feed her. Therefore, “[the
child] had spent her whole life in a state of physical, sensory, social and emotional
deprivation.” (Yule, 2014, p. 164)

Thus, when Genie was found at the age of 13 she was unable to speak, cry, or
produce any vocal sound. However, with treatments and help of psychologists and
language experts, she started to recognize, imitate and later on communicate using
some aspects of the language through tests and language games. At first, she scored a
level of a one-year-old child proficiency and after a year of treatment, she even started
to put three words together. “In children going through normal language development,
this stage is followed by what is known as a language explosion. Children rapidly acquire
new words and begin putting them together in novel ways. Unfortunately, this never
happened for Genie” (Cherry, 2016) Her linguistic abilities remained at this stage, and
even though she learnt some language during and after her puberty, she could not
achieve a proper proficiency due to her inability to use grammar.

What is controversial about this case is that Genie was able to “get” some kind of
language yet it was very little. Some experts say that with this case, the idea of a Critical
Period to acquire a language is not possible, since she was able to produce words and
communicate in her way. On the contrary, others say that she was able to acquire/learn
a language but similar to L2 learners. Some tests have demonstrated that she has no
language or the facility to language in her left hemisphere (the one in charge of L1),
instead she used her right hemisphere for language functions (the one believed to be
related to L2).

8
4. Critical Period Hypothesis and Second Language Acquisition/Learning

The critical period hypothesis has often been extended to a critical period for
second-language acquisition, because older learners of a second language rarely
achieve the native-like fluency that younger learners display. Consequently, “second
language learning outside the critical periods is different and less natural than that
occurring during the critical period.” (De Groot & Kroll, 2014, p. 22)

Certain linguistic aspects seem to be more affected by the age of the learner that
other, this is the case of pronunciation. Adult second-language learners nearly always
maintain a foreign accent, including someone who is very good at grammar. The
explanation to this is that phonology is susceptible to the critical period, because the
pronunciation of speech sounds has to do with neuromuscular function. Hence, adults
are past the prime age of learning new neuromuscular functions, and therefore
pronunciations. Instead, on the case of vocabulary there is no critical period for learning
it in a second language, because vocabulary is learned by memory.

The critical period hypothesis in second language acquisition follows a “use it

then lose it” approach, which states that as a person ages, excess neural circuitry used
during L1 learning is broken down. If these neural structures remained intact they would
cost unnecessary metabolic energy to maintain, and the structures necessary for L1 are
kept. On the other hand, the “use it or lose it” approach says that if an L2 learner begins
at an early age and continue on through his life, his language-learning circuitry will
remain active. It is also called the “exercise hypothesis”. In other words, “exercise
hypothesis can also accommodate anecdotal accounts of individuals who start L2
acquisition early and continue to acquire foreign languages successfully into adulthood”.
(Birdsong, 2009, p. 7)

As we said before, the strongest empirical evidence for the critical period
hypothesis regarding second language acquisition is in the study of accent, where most
older learners do not reach a native-like level. However, accent is affected by multiple
factors, such as identity and motivation, rather than a critical period biological constraint.

Some authors have said that the critical period hypothesis does not apply to
second language acquisition, and that the proficiency is resolute by the time and effort
that learners put into the learning process rather than learner’s age. Other actors may
be more significant in successful second language learning, such as personal motivation,
anxiety, input and output skills, and the learning environment. The combination of these
factors leads to a well second-language acquisition experience.

9
 Still, the evidence suggests that Second Language learners go through the same
stages as children when they are acquiring their L1, even when the process is totally
conscious (contrary to the L1 that is an unconscious process). Acquiring the first
language is a matter of exposure to it called input. In SLA, also the learners have to be
exposed to the second language in order to look them familiar. This input should be
comprehensible so that they can understand and process it, by using simple structures
and vocabulary (Yule, 2014).

Basically, when children begin to acquire a language is a matter of trying out

constructions and testing if they work or not (Yule, 2014). In the SLA process is nearly
the same, with the difference that learners do it consciously, because they know that
language has different rules and structures. So, the best way to learn a second language
is through “trial and error”, where the mistakes have a greater impact in learners, if the
corrections are accurate and tact to make it positive.

10
 Conclusions

Throughout the development of this paper, we could see that there are many well-
known authors, such as Chomsky, Skinner, Lenneberg, Yule, etc. agree with the
relevance of the Critical Period Hypothesis in the First and Second Language
Acquisition. The ideas that they proposed with their works have made important
contributions on these areas in order to comprehend how human beings develop
different aspects of themselves, specially what makes us different from other beings:
language.

They not only focused on how we acquire language, but also which is the best
period to do it due to the plasticity of the brain during childhood allowing children to catch
things easily (specially languages).

We consider that the Critical Period Hypothesis is very important since there are
many factors that we, as Second Language teachers, need to take into account when
teaching people.

The fact that there is a critical period is not something that limits you to learn a
second language after this period. Maybe you will not be able to use it with the proficiency
of a native speaker, but you will have the ability to express yourself in another language
besides your L1. We also think that the best way to trach a foreign language is to get the
children familiar with other languages since they are born in order to make the learning
process easier.

As we said at the beginning, this Hypothesis is important because it settles the

basis not only of the idea of a Critical Period, but also to use it as the development or
methodologies and teaching strategies aiming at the improvement of our students’ skills,
especially if it starts before the end of the C.P. so they will be able to communicate not
only in their L1, but also in their L2 effectively.

11
 Bibliography and Works Cited

Birdsong, D. (2009). Second Language Acquisition and the Critical Perios Hypothesis.
New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, publishers.
Carr, D. C. (2014, May 05). Use It or Lose It! Exercising your minf becomes even more
important. Retrieved Nov 18, 2016, from Psychology Today:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-third-age/201405/use-it-or-lose-it
Cherry, K. (2016, August 20). Genie: The story of the Wild Child. Retrieved Nov. 2016,
2016, from verywell: https://www.verywell.com/genie-the-story-of-the-wild-child-
2795241
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Massachusetts: The M.I.T Press.
De Groot, A. M., & Kroll, J. F. (2014). Tutorials in Bilingualism Psycholinguistic
Perspectives. Psychology Press.
Lenneberg, E. H. (1967). Biological foundations of language. New York: John Wiley and
Sons.
Mowrer, O. H. (1960). Learning Theory and Behavior. New York: Wiley.
Singleton, J. L., & Newport, E. L. (2004, Dec.). When learners surpass their models: The
acquisition of American Sign Language from inconsistent input. Cognitive
Psychology, 49(4), 370-407.
Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal Behavior. Prentice Hall, Inc.
Tool Module: Chomsky’s Universal Grammar. (n.d.). Retrieved 11 17, 2016, from The
Brain from Top to Bottom:
http://thebrain.mcgill.ca/flash/capsules/outil_rouge06.html
Yule, G. (2014). The study of Language. (5th, Ed.) Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.

12