According to what we have discussed in class and from the readings, my reflection of last week’s class would be as follows: As there are many scholars who previously talked about the Critical Period Hypothesis (CPH) which is a window of learning of language as native-like for humans, (Ortega, 2016). I learned that it is possible that late adult language learners such as Julie 21-year-old (Loup et al., 1994) who learned Egyptian Arabic can master second language close to native-like which falsifies the idea that the younger the better and in the article by (Hyltenstam & Abrahamsson, 2000) that younger language learners are better, they outperform adult learners, and younger learners can reach native-like level of language learning. So, Julie can be a native-like late learner as mentioned in the article. For me, I did not expect such things to happen because of the idea that I received when I studied my MA about CPH which behind that period is impossible to attain the language native-like. However, these examples are exceptional, and I personally still need more detail on that to digest it. I learned that to be a young or adult language learner, both have their advantages and disadvantages in terms of learning languages. For instance, as an adult the language learning process is conscious; they are cognitively mature, and they can control their learning, their focus and memory can support their language learning, and they learn faster in a brief period of time, but this learning competency will not last long. It drops as it reaches a year or so. Also, adults can create opportunities for learning in so many ways, and literacy is a powerful tool for them to learn faster because they can reach the resources of the target language easily. On the contrary, for younger learners the process of learning language is unconscious, and it is slower. It takes at least 3-5 years to learn and master the language, but the competency grows and develops with cognitive and biological growth. Besides, we have this in mind that aging influences every activity that we do, but I believe most of us have some examples in mind that even age is a vital factor of learning deficiency but still it is possible that people learn language in older ages even above 50 years old, for instance, Kathryn Berck who used to be a US Foreign Service Officer, and claimed that she learned Indonesian at 38, French at 42, Russian at 50 and Greek at 58, (https://www.quora.com/). However, I would motivation and self-esteem support this type of learning at ages like this. Another interesting point for me was that when we talked about the animals that have a specific time window of acquiring some systems as in the kittens, they lose vision if they do not practice seeing in their 30 and 80 days of life when they are born. This is due to that their brain failed to connect. I was wondering if there were or going to be any experiments for human beings when they miss the CPH what would be the result, do they lose language learning ability. Although, the feral children are kind of similar case, but still it is not 100% accurate data because some of them had some exposure to language to some extent. 1 Week Reflection Name Institution Course Instructor Date 2 This week’s topic is “Age and Second Language Acquisition (SLA).” This topic influenced me to learn how people of different age groups cope with additional languages other than the first. Additionally, it expanded my knowledge of the fundamental commonalities and abstract properties shared by different languages and how individuals of different ages learn. According to Ortega (2014, p. 23), SLA occurs in two forms: naturalistic and instructed contexts. Ortega (2014, p. 23) submits that naturalistic learners acquire the second language through multicultural neighborhoods, schools or workplaces. However, instructed learners can obtain the second language through “formal study” in academic institutions, generally through private lessons (Ortega, 2014, p.23). This indicates that social interactions with other people and institutions can influence language. Indeed, through language, people can communicate and understand each other successfully. Therefore, acquiring a second or an additional language is vital in improving communication. Besides, age is a crucial factor when acquiring knowledge on specific concepts. This way, Pfenninger and Singleton (2016, p. 3) suggests that young learners can respond to experiences and practices within the classroom, which shapes their “L2 learning motivation and performance.” Pfenninger (2016, p. 3) submits that positive groups have significantly increased motivation and goodwill when learners interact. Notably, young individuals have professional aspirations and can normalize influences during classroom interactions. This enables them to motivate one another towards achieving excellent results. Additionally, positive groups establish good learning for the environment. Thus, educators should organize learners into groups and foster good relations, which is vital for positive academic outcomes. According to Hyltenstam and Abrahamsson (2000, p.3), young learners can grasp the second language more quickly than older learners. This statement depicts the age concept in learning, suggesting that younger individuals are more active at acquiring new knowledge than older people. Hyltenstam and Abrahamsson (2000, p. 3) posit that “younger learners 3 outperform older learners based on the eventual outcome.” This indicates that young people are more dynamic than older people; they can easily learn from experiences and achieve positive results. Besides, research indicates that young people can automatically acquire an additional or second language from exposure, while older individuals have to engage in “conscious and labored” practices to learn (Hyltenstam & Abrahamsson, 2000, p. 3). Young individuals can build quality rapport with others, allowing them to acquire new skills and knowledge during their interactions. However, older people are more mature; hence, they only engage in constructive things. This way, acquiring a second language becomes laborious due to other activities. Hyltenstam & Abrahamsson (2000, p. 3) also suggest that young learners can attain higher proficiency in native languages than older learners. Thus, age is a critical factor in learning additional languages since children and adults have different levels of attentiveness. According to Ortega (2014, p.172), the “brain exhibits a special propensity” early in life, allowing people to learn from environmental experiences. Ortega, Hyltenstam & Abrahamsson supports the notion that children acquire an additional language better than adults. Previously, I was perplexed to hear my 10-year-old cousin communicate fluent Spanish. I later understood that he learns Spanish in school and interacts with Hispanic children more often. Therefore, I can use Hyltenstam and Abrahamsson’s ideas to answer my questions on how individuals of different age groups cope and learn the second or additional languages. However, I recommend parents expose children to other languages at a younger age to increase their knowledge and mastery of effective communication. Also, academic institutions should work with L2 teachers to help students understand and speak fluent English language. 4 References Hyltenstam, K., & Abrahamsson, N. (2000). Who can become native‐like in a second language? All, some, or none? On the maturational constraints controversy in second language acquisition. Studia linguistica, 54(2), 150-166. Ortega, L. (2014). Understanding second language acquisition. Routledge. Pfenninger, S. E., & Singleton, D. (2016). Affect trumps age: A person-in-context relational view of age and motivation in SLA. Second Language Research, 32(3), 311-345. At the end of this week’s class, Professor briefly mentioned Munoz and Singlton’s concern of whether it is appropriate to compare “the native speaker” with bilinguals? This got me thinking about the tensions and dichotomy between native English speakers (NES) and Non-native English speakers (NNES), which I will reflect on in this post. The critical period hypothesis (CPH) is concerned with whether or not children and adults can acquire native-like pronunciation before and after a certain period of time. Children before a certain age can native-like pronunciation. On the other hand, the scholarship in language learning has demonstrated that adults cannot speak like native speakers. The question is, However, who is considered a native speaker of English? Braine (2010) states, “native speakers are associated with “brightbirth”, fluency, cultural affinity and sociolinguistic competence” (p. 9). Similarly, in his seminal categorization, Kachru (1992) identifies that native speaker are those who were born in inner circles countries such as America, Canada, England, Australia etc. In contrast, non-native speakers of English are those who are from outer and expanding circles countries including Vietnamese China, Saudi Arabia etc. This notion of nativespeakerism has been problematized considerably as it assumes that native speakers’ pronunciation is the central while their counterparts’ is periphery. Reis & Johnson (2010) comment on the ideology of native speakers by stating that accent is not essential in communication as they are many different accents, but what matters is intelligibility and comprehensibility. In other words, just as outer and expanding circles countries have distinctive accents, citizens of the so-called inner circles countries have also different accents and geographical dialects. From a “world Englishes” lens, all the aftermentioned accents and dialects should be labelled as varieties of English. (Jenkins, 2006). It is also important to note that speakers who speak English as an additional language outnumber those who are considered “native speakers”. Having said that, there is no logical reason to differentiate between native and non-native speakers of English. At the end of this week’s class, Professor briefly mentioned Munoz and Singlton’s concern of whether it is appropriate to compare “the native speaker” with bilinguals? This got me thinking about the tensions and dichotomy between native English speakers (NES) and Non-native English speakers (NNES), which I will reflect on in this post. The critical period hypothesis (CPH) is concerned with whether or not children and adults can acquire native-like pronunciation before and after a certain period of time. Children before a certain age can native-like pronunciation. On the other hand, the scholarship in language learning has demonstrated that adults cannot speak like native speakers. The question is, However, who is considered a native speaker of English? Braine (2010) states, “native speakers are associated with “brightbirth”, fluency, cultural affinity and sociolinguistic competence” (p. 9). Similarly, in his seminal categorization, Kachru (1992) identifies that native speaker are those who were born in inner circles countries such as America, Canada, England, Australia etc. In contrast, non-native speakers of English are those who are from outer and expanding circles countries including Vietnamese China, Saudi Arabia etc. This notion of nativespeakerism has been problematized considerably as it assumes that native speakers’ pronunciation is the central while their counterparts’ is periphery. Reis & Johnson (2010) comment on the ideology of native speakers by stating that accent is not essential in communication as they are many different accents, but what matters is intelligibility and comprehensibility. In other words, just as outer and expanding circles countries have distinctive accents, citizens of the so-called inner circles countries have also different accents and geographical dialects. From a “world Englishes” lens, all the aftermentioned accents and dialects should be labelled as varieties of English. (Jenkins, 2006). It is also important to note that speakers who speak English as an additional language outnumber those who are considered “native speakers”. Having said that, there is no logical reason to differentiate between native and non-native speakers of English. 1 Second Language Acquisition Student’s Name Institution Course Instructor Date 2 Second Language Acquisition Second language acquisition is beneficial for students to improve their communication skills and cognitive abilities. Second language acquisition occurs in two forms: naturalistic and instructed settings. According to Ortega (2014), second language acquisition through a naturalistic setting happens due to interactions in the workplace, schools, and multicultural neighborhoods. Snow and Hoefnagel-Höhle (1978) also opine that second language acquisition through instructed settings occurs via academic institutions, typically through a formal study involving private lessons. Hyltenstam and Abrahamsson (2000) suggest that young learners can acquire the second language efficiently through naturalistic and instructed settings. According to Hyltenstam and Abrahamsson (2000), younger language learners are better at second language learning than older learners. From this view, it is acceptable for the school principal to allow 3 to 4-year-old English-speaking students to learn Spanish language instructions. However, Hyltenstam and Abrahamsson do not specify the exact age, but they mean individuals below puberty. This means that children aged 3 to 4 can acquire a second language. Besides, Bley-Vroman (1990) suggests that younger learners can attain native-like levels of proficiency easily compared to older learners. This indicates that at age 3 to 4, English-speaking learners can be instructed on the Spanish language and attain proficiency. Thus, this is a good age to start. A study by Ortega indicated that young starters were better at accomplishing L2 than adults and adolescents. According to Ortega (2014), “the rate advantage for adults dissipates” after one year while children become competent and surpass “later starters.” This way, English-speaking children of age 3 to 4 years will become fluent in Spanish after some time as long as educators gradually introduce them to the language. Young children may 3 experience a slow start when acquiring an L2, but they become proficient in the long run. Lenneberg (1967) also adds that young learners may become proficient after five years to catch up or surpass adults and adolescents. Based on this view, children aged 3 to 4 can gradually learn Spanish language instructions so that they will have gained fluency at 10 to 11 years. Programs for Spanish language acquisition can be effective for 3 to 4year-old English-speaking students by first teaching them the alphabet. Children should know how to pronounce different letters in the Spanish language and master the difference in the English language. Teachers can interact with children through oral communication to promote comprehension (Abello-Contesse, 2009). Secondly, learners can be exposed to simple Spanish vocabulary, and teachers should relate them to English to promote an understanding. For instance, bola for a ball, cometa for kite, gata for cat, and padre for father. Thirdly, children can be taught simple sentences in Spanish and their meanings in English to help them comprehend. For instance, Maria tieneuna pelota means Mary has a ball. L2 teachers can also educate children on salutations and discipline in Spanish. For instance, gracias for thank you and ‘hola’ for hello. Most importantly, L2 acquisition should be gradual, focusing on crucial aspects of the language to help students comprehend the difference between English and Spanish (Ortega, 2014). Thus, L2 teachers should engage students and support them in learning the significant aspects of the Spanish language to boost their proficiency. 4 References Abello-Contesse, C. (2009). Age and the critical period hypothesis. ELT journal, 63(2), 170172. Bley-Vroman, R. (1990). The logical problem of foreign language learning. Linguistic analysis, 20(1-2), 3-49. Hyltenstam, K., &Abrahamsson, N. (2000). Who can become native‐like in a second language? All, some, or none? On the maturational constraints controversy in second language acquisition. Studialinguistica, 54(2), 150-166. Lenneberg, E. H. (1967). The biological foundations of language. Hospital Practice, 2(12), 59-67. Ortega, L. (2014). Understanding second language acquisition. Routledge. Snow, C. E., Hoefnagel-Höhle, M. (1978). The Critical Period for Language Acquisition: Evidence from Second Language Learning. Child Development, 49(4), pp. 11141128. In last week’s discussion, I was supper shocked that Animals have critical period to learn certain behaviors. I thought only humans have that factor. It is fascinating to me to explore more about animals and their learning behavior. When it comes to humans and language. Age and second language learning is a very controversial topic among SLA experts; however, many students wish they learned their target language when they were children. Those students have this misconception that children are better learners than adults just because the way children sound in the second language. Marinova-Todd, et. al. (2000) analyzed several studies on age and second language acquisition. The article shows that age plays role in learning situations rather than the ability to learn the language. I agree with the authors, and I believe that second language is not impossible to learn, but the methods and factors will influence how we learn a second language. There are several factors might affect L2 acquisition such as Neurobiological, cognitive, affective, and linguistics considerations. I will discuss the neurobiological factor. Most of the debates in age and second language learning are about neurobiological ability and more specifically the critical period hypothesis CPH. Penfeild and Roberts (1959) proposed the concept of CPH and state that children can best acquire a language before the age of 9. They also say “the human brain becomes…stiff and rigid” (p.236). Lenneberg (1967) argued that the LAD, like other biological functions, works successfully only when it is stimulated at the right time, a time which is referred as the critical period. Krashen (1973) stated that the left side of the brain may be completed at age 5. Lamendella (1977) addressed that learning goals at early childhood stage are more achievable than at the later ages. On the other hand, Marinova-Todd, et. al. (2000) state that this evidence is not adequate because they contain three fallacies. First, a misinterpretation claims that children learn a second language rapidly. However, Snow& Hoefangel- Hohle(1978) found that adolescents and adults performed better than young children and achieved high proficiency level in pronunciation, morphology, and syntax. Rivera (1998) also addressed those adolescents are superior to children in L2 phonological performance. I think that there is a difference between learning better and learning faster. Adults learn better than children because they absorb information and able to use it logically. Children misleads us when they imitate and repeat what they are taught, and we think it is better and faster learning. To illustrate, when a parrot repeats words we say to it, we do not claim it is learning because it is faster repetition without comprehension and ability to recall the words when they are needed. In conclusion, learning a language is possible at any age, but the debates are mostly about how native or close to native the learners and, at what age they have reached that level. I think that close to native is possible at older ages, however, it requires a lot of effort and patience. Another important point is that language development is leaned more to sensitive period rather than critical period because language development is decreased gradually not abruptly and there is always room for development even with less efficient progress after the CP. 1 Second Language Acquisition Student’s Name Institution Course Instructor Date 2 Second Language Acquisition Learning foreign languages such as Spanish are important for children to understand more about culture, improve interaction with others and foster unity in society. Spanish is the second most spoken language in the U.S. due to the presence of Hispanics. Thus, exposing children to L2 instructions on Spanish is essential to promote cultural learning. For a school principal considering Spanish language instruction for 3 to 4-year-old English speaking students, I think this is a good age to start. Snow and Heofnagel-Hohle (1978) performed an L2 acquisition study involving individuals of different age groups: 3-5 years old, 6-7 years old, 8 – 10 years old, 12 – 15 years old and adults. In the study, Snow and Hoefnagel-Hohle (1978) discovered that children between ages 3-5 had a slightly positive mutation, which grew spontaneous with time. According to Snow and HeofnagelHohle (1978), learners between ages 3-5 demonstrated a slow start when learning a second language but became perfect with time, eventually overtaking adolescents and adults. From this view, I think it is a good age for 3 to 4-year-old English speaking students to learn Spanish. Moreover, Ortega (2014) suggests that children become competent and surpass “later starters” after some time of learning the second language. This suggests that young learners begin gradually while adapting to significant aspects of the second language to achieve fluency in later stages. For that reason, English speaking students can start learning Spanish at the age of 3 to 4 years so that by age 10 or 11, they will have become proficient. According to Lennerberg (1967), young learners can take a period of five years to attain proficiency. However, young learners are advantaged since they stick to L2 instructions for a longer time than adolescents and adults. Hence, I concur that English speaking students be exposed to 3 Spanish language instructions at the right age of 3 to 4 to build their proficiency and fluency by the time they attain puberty. For the program to be effective, she should adopt dual language plans to help students become fully bilingual. Dual language plans happen by involving native Spanish speaking students and native English speaking students (Palacios & Ford, 2015). The educator should communicate instructions in both languages to assist learners attain fluency in Spanish and English. She can also expose English speaking students to Spanish immersion programs to help them achieve fluency (Palacios & Ford, 2015). Additionally, she can educate students on Spanish and English alphabet and recognize key differences to improve their understanding. The educator can use repetition to foster an understanding of the Spanish language. Children can also be taught how to pronounce different articles and letters in Spanish. The process should be gradual to help them become fluent and proficient in Spanish. Overall, second language acquisition is good at any age but it is efficient at early stages of life. Snow and Hoefnagel-Hofle’s study show that language can be acquired at an any age; however, children become proficient and fluent in later stages than adult and adolescents. Therefore, it is right for English speaking students to acquire Spanish instructions between age 3 and 4, to make them proficient and fluent later before puberty. 4 References Hyltenstam, K., & Abrahamsson, N. (2000). Who can become native‐like in a second language? All, some, or none? On the maturational constraints controversy in second language acquisition. Studia linguistica, 54(2), 150-166. Lenneberg, E. H. (1967). The biological foundations of language. Hospital Practice, 2(12), 59-67. Ortega, L. (2014). Understanding second language acquisition. Routledge. Palacios, R. & Ford, K. (2015). “Early Literacy Instruction in Spanish: Teaching the Beginning Reader.” Accessed on February 8, 2022. https://www.colorincolorado.org/article/early-literacy-instruction-spanish-teachingbeginning-reader Snow, C. E., & Hoefnagel-Höhle, M. (1978). The critical period for language acquisition: Evidence from second language learning. Child development, 1114-1128.
Purchase answer to see full attachment