Frequently Asked Questions about
Second Language Acquisition

 

Is there a critical period for second language learning?

The critical period hypothesis is derived from studies which showed that there were biological constraints to first language acquisition. In particular, Eric Lenneberg (1967) speculated that because the critical period ended at puberty for first language acquisition, the same probably obtained for second language learning. Although this account appeals to many people's intuitions and personal experiences, there is no empirical evidence to show that there is a sharp drop in language learning ability after puberty. The research evidence shows that there is no sharp or 'critical' drop-off point, instead language learning ability declines gradually with age, as shown by correlation studies. Furthermore, there is no evidence that there is a qualitative difference in the way children and adults learn a second language, that is, they make similar kinds of errors, and proceed along similar paths of development. The critical period hypothesis also assumes a minimal role for environmental factors. Yet, studies show that socioeconomic status is a key variable in attaining language proficiency. Data from these studies show that students in low-SES schools attained English proficiency at a rate of about a full year slower than those in richer schools. Moreover, within the Limited English Proficient (LEP) population, a disproportionate number (80%) who come from homes with incomes below the poverty level.

Is the process of learning a second language (L2) similar to that for learning a first language (L1)?

There are two ways of viewing this. One view sees learning a second language as a cumulative process, which builds on one's knowledge of the first language. All things being equal, learning a language closely related to one's native language is easier than learning a language that is radically different, e.g. a native English speaker would find learning Spanish easier than learning Chinese, not only because of linguistic features (e.g. atonal vs. tonal; inflectional vs non-inflectional), but also because of differences in their writing systems (alphabetic vs. pictographic). A second view sees an equivalent relationship between learning an L2 and L1. This is known as the L2=L1 hypothesis. Research evidence shows that second language learners, regardless of what native language they speak, tend to make similar errors and go through a similar process of language development. This is similar to first language acquisition in that there appears to be some universal tendency in the acquisition process. In other words, the innate human ability to acquire language in a systematic way, applies to both first and second language acquisition. The truth probably lies somewhere in between. There is no conclusive evidence to support one view and disprove the other, but both hypotheses apply to the second language acquisition process.

How long does it take for LEP students to learn English as a second language?

It takes between 3 and 5 years to develop oral proficiency and academic English proficiency can take 4 to 7 years. Learning a second language while learning content, and trying to keep up with native English speakers who are advancing their English skills is a daunting task. LEP students need a balanced curriculum, which emphasizes conceptual knowledge while developing their language skills, and which extends through a substantial period of time, e.g. the whole of the elementary grades.

Are there cognitive benefits to bilingualism?

Early studies indicated that being bilingual had negative cognitive effects. However, these studies have subsequently been shown to be biased. The 'bilingual' students tested were immigrants and they were compared to native English-speaking monolinguals on IQ tests. These immigrant children were probably not bilingual, and were disadvantaged because they were not proficient in English. Because the comparison groups were not matched to control for external effects, such as socioeconomic status, the results were inaccurate. Recent studies which have better controls show that there are cognitive benefits to being bilingual, such as greater metalinguistic ability. Because bilingual children have superior ability in analytic processing of verbal input, they are able to use language creatively, and they show more enhanced awareness of language as a system. Developing these skills enables bilingual children to exercise greater control over their cognitive functions, and this will help their performance in a variety of academic tasks.

How do bilingual education programs compare with other methods such as immersion and sheltered English?

Research comparing program types and academic achievement suggests that there are modest-sized benefits in favor of bilingual education programs. However, the evaluation of bilingual education programs is often limited by the narrowness of the outcome measures used. This problem is further compounded by the vast differences in program implementation across the United States, which has a highly decentralized educational system. Finally, the disadvantages of poverty are known to exert a large negative effect on educational achievement independent of language ability.

What do we know about the theory of second language acquisition?

Many teachers are familiar with the work of Stephen Krashen because he was the first to synthesize and integrate a number of research studies on second language acquisition, and come up with some constructs for thinking about the acquisition process. According to Krashen, "the true causative variables in second language acquisition derive from the input hypothesis and affective filter - the amount of comprehensible input the acquirer receives and understands, and the strength of the affective filter, or the degree to which the acquirer is 'open' to the input." The input hypothesis is based on the following assumptions: 1) It relates to acquisition, not learning; 2) We acquire by understanding language that contains structure a bit beyond our current level of competence (i +1). This is done with the help of context, or extra-linguistic information; 3) When communication is successful, when the input is understood and there is enough of it, i+1 will be provided automatically; 4) Production ability emerges. It is not taught directly. The affective filter hypothesis summarizes the research which has confirmed that a variety of affective variables relate to success in second language acquisition, e.g. motivation, self-confidence, and anxiety. It is hypothesized that comprehensible input can be blocked by the affective filter if the latter is considered 'high'. This means that an acquirer receiving comprehensible input may still not be able to produce the second language due to the effects of, for instance, low self-image. However, the main critique of Krashen's hypotheses is that they cannot be tested or proven. It is also not entirely clear what comprehensible input is. Moreover, for the affective filter hypothesis to be helpful, there should be more specificity in what affect variables, singly or in combination, and at what levels, serve to 'raise the filter'.


Return to Language and Literacy  ->  LAU top