Wordle

Using Voicethread

Voicethread is a fantastic website which allows you record a short video, and invite comments from others. Here's a short voicethread video I've done about 21st Century Technologies in the classroom. This link will take you to the website, where, if you have an account, you will be able to add a video response!

Discussing 21st Century Technologies for the Classroom

Stephen Krashen

Those of you not familiar with the work of Stephen Krashen (comprehensible input etc.) should really check out his work. Whilst you may not necessarily agree with Dr. Krashen's theories of language acquisition, one cannot dispute his presentation skills. I would have loved to have been at this lecture!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXJwGFpfCY8

The Critical Period Hypothesis

Below is a copy of a short (500 word) essay I wrote about the critical period hypothesis, first popularised by Lenneberg. I was a first year undergraduate university student at the time, so this is by no means a concise account. Please feel free to add your comments....

Is there a critical period in which language acquisition has to occur in order for it to be truly successful?

This essay will explore whether a window of opportunity exists to begin language acquisition in order to reach a native-like level. It will summarise the findings of Birdsong and Lenneberg before final concluding that the existence of a critical period (CP) remains inconclusive.

The theories of adult second language (L2A) differ greatly from first language acquisition (L1A). A theory known as the Critical Period Hypothesis (CPH) explains the differences between L1A and L2A by suggesting that there is a limited window of opportunity which, when past, results in the decline of the ability to acquire language to native-like levels.

It is argued that there is no single CPH. Each theory refers to various limits of language acquisition. The first theory, which is popularised by Lenneberg (1967) cites the loss of neural plasticity in the brain. Lenneberg also demonstrates the limited success of L2A by stating:

‘Most individuals of average intelligence are able to learn a second language after the beginning of their second decade...... A person can learn to communicate in a foreign language at the age of forty......... since natural languages tend to resemble one another in many fundamental aspects  ...... the matrix for language skills is present.’ (p. 176)

This mentioning of the matrix for language skills refers to what Birdsong labels the language learning faculty, relating to a neurological network in the brain which corresponds to language acquisition. Birdsong makes clear that this observation from Lenneberg can be referred to as the use it or lose it theory. He claims that successful L2A can occur if the language learning faculty remains active by suggesting that, if retained, a subject can continue to acquire foreign languages into adulthood. A similar theory dubbed use it then lose it (Pinker, 1994) continues to argue that if L2A does not start early, neural circuitry no longer required is dismantled. Birdsong supports this theory by claiming that ‘retaining the language learning faculty would be uneconomical.’ (pg. 5)

Regarding cases against the CPH, an experiment was carried out by Birdsong (1999) in 1992 on 20 adult native English speakers learning French. Upon completion 75% achieved grades within the range of native speaker performance. (pg. 9) These results appeared to link with the subject’s age on arrival (AOA) in France suggesting evidence of continued age effects after the CP, thus disproving the CPH.

A further experiment carried out by Johnson and Newport (1989) on 46 Korean and Chinese learners of English suggested that ultimate attainment of proficiency could not be linked to post-maturational AOA. They had all lived in the USA for 5 years or more; differing only in their AOA. The data gathered suggested that there was a linear decline in performance after an AOA of around 7 years. It then appeared to show that after this age-related window of opportunity closed at about 17 years AOA, the distribution of performance was essentially random.

To conclude; although an earlier-is-better rule generally applies to L2A, the existence of a critical period is inconclusive. It can be argued that the CPH is valid, however, the exact age in which this critical ‘cut-off’ point occurs remains the subject of much debate due to inconsistent research findings.

References

·         BIRDSONG, D. (1999) Introduction: Whys and Why Nots of the Critical Period Hypothesis for Second Language Acquisition. In: BIRDSONG, D. ed. Second Language Acquisition and the Critical Period Hypothesis. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp.1-22.

·         JOHNSON, J.S. & NEWPORT, E.L. (1989) Critical Period effects in Second Language Learning: The influence of Maturational state on the acquisition of English as a second language. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 60-99.

·         LENNEBERG, E.H. (1967) Biological Foundations of Language. London: Wiley.

·         PINKER, S. (1994) The Language Instinct: How the mind creates Language. New York: Morrow.