key concepts in elt

Age and the critical period hypothesis

Christian Abello-Contesse

In the field of second language acquisition (SLA), how specific aspects of

learning a non-native language (L2) may be affected by when the process
begins is referred to as the ‘age factor’. Because of the way age intersects
with a range of social, affective, educational, and experiential variables,
clarifying its relationship with learning rate and/or success is a major
challenge.
There is a popular belief that children as L2 learners are ‘superior’ to
adults (Scovel 2000), that is, the younger the learner, the quicker the
learning process and the better the outcomes. Nevertheless, a closer
examination of the ways in which age combines with other variables reveals
a more complex picture, with both favourable and unfavourable age-related
differences being associated with early- and late-starting L2 learners
(Johnstone 2002).
The ‘critical period hypothesis’ (C PH) is a particularly relevant case in point.
This is the claim that there is, indeed, an optimal period for language
acquisition, ending at puberty. However, in its original formulation
(Lenneberg 1967), evidence for its existence was based on the relearning of
impaired L1 skills, rather than the learning of a second language under
normal circumstances.
Furthermore, although the age factor is an uncontroversial research
variable extending from birth to death (Cook 1995), and the C PH is
a narrowly focused proposal subject to recurrent debate, ironically, it is the
latter that tends to dominate SLA discussions (Garcı́a Lecumberri and
Gallardo 2003), resulting in a number of competing conceptualizations.
Thus, in the current literature on the subject (Bialystok 1997; Richards and
Schmidt 2002; Abello-Contesse et al. 2006), references can be found to
(i) multiple critical periods (each based on a specific language component,
such as age six for L2 phonology), (ii) the non-existence of one or more
critical periods for L2 versus L1 acquisition, (iii) a ‘sensitive’ yet not ‘critical’
period, and (iv) a gradual and continual decline from childhood to
adulthood.
It therefore needs to be recognized that there is a marked contrast between
the CPH as an issue of continuing dispute in SL A, on the one hand, and, on
the other, the popular view that it is an invariable ‘law’, equally applicable to
any L2 acquisition context or situation. In fact, research indicates that age
effects of all kinds depend largely on the actual opportunities for learning
which are available within overall contexts of L2 acquisition and particular
170 E LT Journal Volume 63/2 April 2009; doi:10.1093/elt/ccn072
ª The Author 2008. Published by Oxford University Press; all rights reserved.
Advance Access publication December 18, 2008
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/eltj/article-abstract/63/2/170/441108
by guest
on 17 May 2018
 learning situations, notably the extent to which initial exposure is
substantial and sustained (Lightbown 2000).
Thus, most classroom-based studies have shown not only a lack of direct
correlation between an earlier start and more successful/rapid L2
development but also a strong tendency for older children and teenagers to
be more efficient learners. For example, in research conducted in the
context of conventional school programmes, Cenoz (2003) and Muñoz
(2006) have shown that learners whose exposure to the L2 began at age
11 consistently displayed higher levels of proficiency than those for whom it
began at 4 or 8. Furthermore, comparable limitations have been reported for
young learners in school settings involving innovative, immersion-type
programmes, where exposure to the target language is significantly
increased through subject-matter teaching in the L2 (Genesee 1992; Abello-
Contesse 2006). In sum, as Harley and Wang (1997) have argued, more
mature learners are usually capable of making faster initial progress in
acquiring the grammatical and lexical components of an L2 due to their
higher level of cognitive development and greater analytical abilities.
In terms of language pedagogy, it can therefore be concluded that (i) there is
no single ‘magic’ age for L2 learning, (ii) both older and younger learners are
able to achieve advanced levels of proficiency in an L2, and (iii) the general
and specific characteristics of the learning environment are also likely to be
variables of equal or greater importance.

References J. Arzamendi (eds.). Bilingüismo y Adquisición de

Abello-Contesse, C. 2006. ‘Does interaction help or Segundas Lenguas. Bilbao, Spain: Servicio Editorial de
hinder oral L2 development in early English la Universidad del Paı́s Vasco.
immersion?’ in C. Abello-Contesse et al. (eds.). Harley, B. and W. Wang. 1997. ‘The critical period
Abello-Contesse, C., R. Chacón Beltrán, M. D. López- hypothesis: where are we now?’ in A. M. B. de Groot
Jiménez, and M. M. Torreblanca-López (eds.). 2006. and J. F. Kroll (eds.). Tutorials in Bilingualism.
Age in L2 Acquisition and Teaching. Bern, Switzerland: Psycholinguistic Perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Peter Lang. Erlbaum Associates.
Bialystok, E. 1997. ‘The structure of age: in search of Johnstone, R. 2002. ‘Addressing ‘‘the age factor’’:
barriers to second language acquisition’. Second some implications for language policy’. Council of
Language Research 13/2: 116–37. Europe, Strasbourg: Available at: http://www.coe.
Cenoz, J. 2003. ‘The influence of age on the int/t/dg4/linguistic/source/JohnstoneEN.pdf
acquisition of English: general proficiency, attitudes Lenneberg, E. H. 1967. Biological Foundations of
and code-mixing’ in M. P. Garcı́a Mayo and Language. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
M. L. Garcı́a Lecumberri (eds.). Lightbown, P. 2000. ‘Classroom SLA research and
Cook, V. 1995. ‘Multicompetence and effects of age’ second language teaching’. Applied Linguistics 21/4:
in D. Singleton and Z. Lengyel (eds.). The Age Factor 431–62.
in Second Language Acquisition. Clevedon, UK: Muñoz, C. 2006. ‘The B AF project: research on the
Multilingual Matters Ltd. effects of age on foreign language acquisition’ in
Garcı́a Lecumberri, M. L. and F. Gallardo. 2003. C. Abello-Contesse et al. (eds.).
‘English FL sounds in school learners of different Richards, J. C. and R. Schmidt. 2002. Longman
ages’ in M. P. Garcı́a Mayo and M. L. Garcı́a Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied
Lecumberri (eds.). Linguistics. London: Longman.
Garcı́a Mayo,M. P. and M. L. Garcı́a Lecumberri (eds.). Scovel, T. 2000. ‘ ‘‘The younger, the better’’ myth and
2003. Age and Acquisition of English as a Foreign bilingual education’ in R. D. González and I. Melis
Language. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters Ltd. (eds.). Language Ideologies. Critical Perspectives on the
Genesee, F. 1992. ‘Pedagogical implications of Official English Movement. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
second language immersion’ in F. Etxeberria and Erlbaum Associates.

Age and the critical period hypothesis 171

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/eltj/article-abstract/63/2/170/441108
by guest
on 17 May 2018
 The author and bilingual education. He has published
Dr Christian Abello-Contesse is an Associate numerous journal articles and book chapters
Professor at the University of Seville, Spain, on L2 learning and teaching and has taught at
where he teaches undergraduate courses in several universities in Chile, Spain, and the
ELT methodology and psycholinguistics and United States.
graduate seminars in S L A, bilingualism, Email: christian.abello@ono.com

172 Christian Abello-Contesse

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/eltj/article-abstract/63/2/170/441108
by guest
on 17 May 2018