Week 6: Critical Period Hypothesis
As I have read the chapter, I found interest in the research done by Patkowski, which tries to see how age and language acquisition are related other than pronunciation. The book says that the transcripts of all native speakers and 32 out of 33 second language speakers who had begun learning English before the age of 15 were rated 4+ to 5. On the other hand, 27 of the 32 post-puberty learners were rated between 3 and 4, but a few learners were rated higher (4+ or 5). This research result gave me sort of chance to think about more on the critical period hypothesis. I thought that if the one who started learning L2 after critical period learned and exposed to the second language for a long time, he/she could gain appropriate grammar or expression other than pronunciation. But this result shows that it is rare for post-puberty learners to gain high proficiency in the second language and the second language learners who had begun learning before 15 have high chance to gain native-like proficiency. It made me think realize that how highly correlated the age when to start the second language is. At the same time, however, I came up the question on it. That is, it is the fact that few of post-puberty learners could achieve higher level. This fact made me think what the differences and factors that make change in the achievement of the target language among the post-puberty learner are, such as the learning method, circumstance surrounding them and so forth.
It was also interesting to think when to start the second language instruction in a institution. On page 97, it is written when one should start exposing to the target language depending on the purpose of learning language. For example, if the learner’s goal is to gain native-like proficiency, it may be desirable for the learner to be completely surrounded by the language as early as possible. It means when the exposure to the second language is started needs to be taken into consideration. Likewise, when to start the second language learning in the institution should be based on the goal or context of that institution as the chapter said. I think it would be quiet difficult for the institution to decide when to start the second language instruction if the goal of it was the way lied on between to achieve native like proficiency but still maintain highly level of students’ first language. In this case, we need take into account sort of nontraditional situation. Namely, in order for the second language learners to achieve native-like proficiency they should be exposed to the target language as early as possible, but there is possibility that if the second language instruction incorporated in the earlier age, it would entail the loss or incomplete development of the first language. With this conflicts between the demand and possible result, how and when to start the second language instruction starts should be taken into consideration. I do not know what the best way is, but it is interesting to think about.
So, as I wrote, I was interested in the factors that make the difference among the post-puberty learners in a way few of them achieve the highly proficiency in their second language, and how to incorporate the second language instruction without losing their first language. So my questions would be, 1. What do you think is the factor/s that make few of post puberty learners gain high proficiency in their second language? 2. How do you think the institution that aims to make the students achieve native-like proficiency and to prevent students from losing their first language at the same time should incorporate the second language instruction in its program?