key concepts in elt

Age and the critical period hypothesis

Christian Abello-Contesse

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 (Garca 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

The Author 2008. Published by Oxford University Press; all rights reserved.
Advance Access publication December 18, 2008

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on August 26, 2013

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.

learning situations, notably the extent to which initial exposure is

substantial and sustained (Lightbown 2000).

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
Abello-Contesse, C. 2006. Does interaction help or
hinder oral L2 development in early English
immersion? in C. Abello-Contesse et al. (eds.).
Abello-Contesse, C., R. Chacon Beltran, M. D. LopezJimenez, and M. M. Torreblanca-Lopez (eds.). 2006.
Age in L2 Acquisition and Teaching. Bern, Switzerland:
Peter Lang.
Bialystok, E. 1997. The structure of age: in search of
barriers to second language acquisition. Second
Language Research 13/2: 11637.
Cenoz, J. 2003. The influence of age on the
acquisition of English: general proficiency, attitudes
and code-mixing in M. P. Garca Mayo and
M. L. Garca Lecumberri (eds.).
Cook, V. 1995. Multicompetence and effects of age
in D. Singleton and Z. Lengyel (eds.). The Age Factor
in Second Language Acquisition. Clevedon, UK:
Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Garca Lecumberri, M. L. and F. Gallardo. 2003.
English FL sounds in school learners of different
ages in M. P. Garca Mayo and M. L. Garca
Lecumberri (eds.).
GarcaMayo,M. P. and M. L. Garca Lecumberri (eds.).
2003. Age and Acquisition of English as a Foreign
Language. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Genesee, F. 1992. Pedagogical implications of
second language immersion in F. Etxeberria and

J. Arzamendi (eds.). Bilinguismo y Adquisicion de

Segundas Lenguas. Bilbao, Spain: Servicio Editorial de
la Universidad del Pas Vasco.
Harley, B. and W. Wang. 1997. The critical period
hypothesis: where are we now? in A. M. B. de Groot
and J. F. Kroll (eds.). Tutorials in Bilingualism.
Psycholinguistic Perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Johnstone, R. 2002. Addressing the age factor:
some implications for language policy. Council of
Europe, Strasbourg: Available at: http://www.coe.
int/t/dg4/linguistic/source/JohnstoneEN.pdf
Lenneberg, E. H. 1967. Biological Foundations of
Language. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Lightbown, P. 2000. Classroom SLA research and
second language teaching. Applied Linguistics 21/4:
43162.
oz, C. 2006. The B AF project: research on the
Mun
effects of age on foreign language acquisition in
C. Abello-Contesse et al. (eds.).
Richards, J. C. and R. Schmidt. 2002. Longman
Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied
Linguistics. London: Longman.
Scovel, T. 2000. The younger, the better myth and
bilingual education in R. D. Gonzalez and I. Melis
(eds.). Language Ideologies. Critical Perspectives on the
Official English Movement. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.

Age and the critical period hypothesis

171

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on August 26, 2013

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
oz
context of conventional school programmes, Cenoz (2003) and Mun
(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; AbelloContesse 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.

The author
Dr Christian Abello-Contesse is an Associate
Professor at the University of Seville, Spain,
where he teaches undergraduate courses in
ELT methodology and psycholinguistics and
graduate seminars in S L A, bilingualism,

and bilingual education. He has published

numerous journal articles and book chapters
on L2 learning and teaching and has taught at
several universities in Chile, Spain, and the
United States.
Email: christian.abello@ono.com

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on August 26, 2013

172

Christian Abello-Contesse