Age Differences in Second Language Acquisition: An Educational Perspective

Author(s): Ki Hwan Lee

Source: The Korean Language in America, Vol. 1 (1995), pp. 281-291
Published by: Penn State University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/42922132
Accessed: 04-05-2018 09:11 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

Penn State University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to The Korean Language in America

This content downloaded from 89.164.174.45 on Fri, 04 May 2018 09:11:00 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Age Differences in Second Language Acquisition:
An Educational Perspective
Ki Hwan Lee

University of California , San Diego

Abstract
For decades, the question of age differences in second language acquisition has
been hotly debated in the linguistics and educational circles for the answer to this
question establishes an important theoretical framework from which to generate
further research on issues related to language acquisition. Currently, there are
numerous literature available that either support or dispute the theory that there are
major differences between children and adults in acquiring a second language. While
these studies prove helpful in demonstrating that some generalizations about age
differences in second language acquisition can be made, the studies fall short of
contributing to fully understanding second language acquisition from an educational
perspective. That is, what implications do these theories have in educational policy,
curriculum, and instruction? The purpose of this paper is to first examine some of
the major theories on age and language acquisition to establish an understanding
these theories generate, and then attempt to explicitly develop educational framework
based on these generalizations.

Amid growing trends in inter-migration (people moving from one place

to another) and inter-dependence, learning a foreign/second language1)
has become a way of life for many people of the 20th century.
Linguists, who once were concerned primarily with structural,
descriptive, generative, and transformational concepts and approaches
(often called theoretical linguistics) are now avid students of applied
linguistics, a subset of linguistics concerned with the definition of
language as not only a behavior but also as a cognitive process. The
application of linguistic theories, however, must extend well beyond the
process level if it is to contribute fully to organizing and developing
better language program policies, as well as to pedagogical requirements
at the national, state, institutional, and classroom levels.
The development of any language program or pedagogical methodology

1 Traditionally, the terms foreign language and second language were

distinguished. Foreign language was considered a "learning" experience
and second language as an "acquiring" process. The two words are
interchangeably used throughout the paper without distinction.

This content downloaded from 89.164.174.45 on Fri, 04 May 2018 09:11:00 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
282 Age Differences in Second Language Acquisition

must be based on the answer to the question "Are there age differences
in second language acquisition"? In general, it is assumed that younger
children can acquire a more native-like proficiency in a second language
than older students.

There are numerous theories and studies which confirm that younger
learners are in a better position than older learners to acquire a second
language more effectively and more efficiently. According to the
plasticity theory, the young child's brain has a cellular receptivity to
language acquisition (Penfield & Roberts, 1959). With age, the cellular
plasticity is believed to reduce the organism's capacity to learn or
acquire language. Based on a clinical study, Wilder Penfield (1959)
observed that it is possible for children but not adults to recover speech
ability following damage to the left hemisphere of the brain. He also
observed that it was possible for the speech function of young children
to shift from the left to the right hemisphere of the brain.
According to Asher and Garcia (1969), children acquire language more
completely and easily than adults because they synchronize language with
physical movement in authentic situations. They proposed that the child's
observed language facility in the natural setting is complemented by
physically active, play situations, whereas adults generally engage in
non-physically active, nonplay situations. This theory was based on the
result of a previous study by Asher and Price (1967) in which they
found that the adult subjects actually performed better than the children
subjects when the utterances were synchronized with physical movement
in a pronunciation test.
Gleitman and Gleitman (1970) contend that children are more adept at
learning a new language than adults because the language system of the
children is significantly simpler than that of the adults. Lenneberg (1967)
has attributed this phenomenon to maturational differences between the
child and the adult. According to Lenneberg, there exists a biologically
based "critical period" for acquiring a language. The critical period
hypothesis as proposed by Lenneberg holds that primary language
acquisition must occur during a critical period. This period is believed to
occur between the ages of two and the onset of puberty at about ten to
twelve during which time cerebral lateralization of function is established.
The implication of this hypothesis is that the processes involved in
second language acquisition between younger learners and older learners
will be qualitatively and quantitatively different.
Several works have been carried out which support Lenneberg 's

This content downloaded from 89.164.174.45 on Fri, 04 May 2018 09:11:00 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Ki Hwan Lee 283

critical period hypothesis. Oy ama (1973 and 1976) found that t

negative correlation between age of arrival in the United States
ability to produce native-like sounds and comprehension. As
Garcia (1969) and Selinger (1975) also reported similar results in
the relation of age of acquisition with the attainment of na
pronunciation. All these studies showed that the age of arriv
United States was a strong predictor of foreign accent in sp
second language: The younger the age of arrival, higher the
native-like pronunciation.
Others have carried out this assumption further by conducting
investigating the relationship between age and the acquisition o
and vocabulary in a second language. In a study by Patkowsk
he found that there was a high correlation between the level of
proficiency and the age at which acquisition of English be
results strongly support the hypothesis that there exists an age-
period for language acquisition. Krashen (1979) also claimed that
during which time a second language is exposed is the most
associated independent variable with eventual second language atta
The notion of "younger the better" is not universally accepted
studies examining the age differences in second language acq
actually favor adults. A short-term study by Snow (1978) showe
the general order of proficiency in the pronunciation of foreign
was from the 12- to 15-year olds, 8- to 10-year-olds, 6- to 7-ye
and 3- to 5-year-olds. In addition, another short-term study by
and Samuels (1973) testing the relationship between age and accu
foreign language pronunciation found that adults were supe
children in foreign language pronunciation.
The observed differences in the results of these studies raise
important questions, one of which is related to research des
conflicting evidence supporting the superiority of both children and
suggest that the results may have been influenced by subject se
instrument, method, and/or procedure. For example, in Oyama
(1978), 60 subjects were asked to listen and repeat 12 sentences
pre-recorded on a cassette tape. Each sentence was accompanied by
background noise. Each successive play of the tape was accompanied by
less noise. The results of this test was based on the ability to listen and
repeat accurately as possible whatever had been understood with the least
number of repetitions (play of the recording). The objective was to
assess the ability of these subjects' to understand spoken English which

This content downloaded from 89.164.174.45 on Fri, 04 May 2018 09:11:00 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
284 Age Differences in Second Language Acquisition

had been masked with noise to reduce redundancy. In reality, the

instrument used in this study to test listening ability and accuracy of
speech was more suitable for a hearing test. The results were based on
the researcher's assumption that all 60 subjects had equal hearing ability.
Any assessment that involves auditory perception must first eliminate any
discrepancies in the hearing ability. Oyama's results, therefore, only
shows an indirect relationship between hearing and pronunciation at best.
Both Snow's (1978) and Olson and Samuels's studies (1973) were
short-term, ranging from less than a few hours to approximately one
year of exposure to a second language. Because the results of these
studies were consistently different from the results of "long-term"
studies-that is, subjects who have been exposed to a second language
for more than two years-the results actually reflect differences in the
rate of acquisition rather than the level of acquisition. This is an
important distinction to be made if the results are to have any
significance to our understanding of age differences in second language
acquisition for the purpose of developing program policies and diverse
methodologies and approaches in the classroom.
The primary conclusion drawn from these studies is that in the short
term, older subjects seem to be superior to younger subjects, but
younger subjects surpass older subjects after a period of about one to
two years. Younger subjects, who were initially worse, seem to continue
to improve more rapidly eventually achieving native-like fluency in a
second language. The common observation that children acquire better
second language than adults, however, cannot be explained simply as
biologically- or neurologically-based. On the contrary, the superiority of
older learners vis-a-vis younger learners during the initial stage of second
language learning seems to be related to the adults' superior vocal
apparatus development, as well as to better cognitive development. One
must concede, however, that young children do possess some special
facility for phonological acquisition (Braine, 1971).
Perhaps environmental-sociological differences between young children
and adults are most responsible for the observation that children acquire
better second language skills than adults. These are some environmental-
sociological differences often neglected in second language acquisition
studies involving age differences.

1. Adults tend to associate more with peers whose primary language is

their native language. Therefore, the amount of exposure to a second

This content downloaded from 89.164.174.45 on Fri, 04 May 2018 09:11:00 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Ki Hwan Lee 285

language is severely restricted.

2. Even when second language is spoken, often language models
adults are limited. On the other hand, children continue to receive
model pronunciation from teachers, adults, and classmates.
3. Adults receive significantly less physical and/or situational cues.
Children, on the other hand, usually received non-verbal messages
along with the language.
4. The cognitive development of older learners tend to slow down,
cease, or even retard. On the contrary, there is constant
reinforcement and opportunity for young children to enhance their
cognitive skills through learning in and out of school.
5. There is greater first language interference for older learners than for
younger learners. Adults often relate to their native language for
understanding the grammar of a second language. Adults also
depend on their first language for listening and pronouncing foreign
words.

6. It is more socially acceptable for adults to retain the features of the

first language than it is for children. Children are often corrected for
incorrect grammar usage and mispronunciation of words
(Christopherson, 1972).
7. The motivation for acquiring a second language for adults is often
dictated by professional objectives (instrumental motivation). There-
fore, if acquiring a second language has no direct professional
implications, the motivational level may be low. Children, on the
other hand, tend to acquire a second language motivated by personal
objectives (integrative motivation). By speaking a second language as
their peers do, children are accepted by their peers.
8. Adults' exposure to a second language is often spontaneous (themes
and contents that may be unfamiliar) whereas children are exposed to
contents that are usually intellectually progressive (everyday speech to
formal to specialized).

From an educational perspective, the practical implications for under-

standing age differences in second language acquisition are (a) knowing
the optimal age to begin instituting language programs and (b)
understanding what methods or approaches should be utilized in teaching
different-aged students. There is much evidence to suggest that there
exists indeed an optimal period for ultimately achieving native to
near-native fluency in a second language. The critical period hypothesis

This content downloaded from 89.164.174.45 on Fri, 04 May 2018 09:11:00 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
286 Age Differences in Second Language Acquisition

seems especially relevant for the acquisition of second language

pronunciation- whether it be due to brain plasticity/lateralization and/or
to environmental/social factors. Considering this, there seems no reason
to not taking full advantage of this period to helping students acquire a
second language. Does this mean schools should introduce foreign
language programs at the elementary level, or does it mean schools
should eliminate bilingual education programs?
The answer to the above questions lies partly on the objective of
foreign language and bilingual education programs. In the 1970s, Hymes
(1967) and Paulston (1974) distinguished between linguistic competence
and communicative competence. According to these scholars, linguistic
competence is the knowledge about language forms and communicative
competence is what enables a person to communicate functionally. James
Cummins (1979, 1980) also proposed a distinction between cognitive/
academic language proficiency (CALP) and basic interpersonal commu-
nicative skills (BICS). Cognitive/ Academic language proficiency refers to
language proficiency related to literacy and academic achievement and
basic interpersonal communication and interpersonal communicative skills
refer to the basic communicative proficiency necessary to function in
everyday situations.
The most contemporary interpretation of linguistic and communicative
competence is offered by Lyle Bachman (1990). In Bachman's
schematization of language competence, grammatical and discourse
(textual) competence are under the node of organizational competence
and illocutionary and sociolinguistic competence are placed under the
pragmatic competence level. Under these levels, there are several
subcategories.

Grammatical Competence : vocabulary, morphology, syntax, and

phonology /graphology .
Textual Competence : cohesion and rhetorical organization
Illocutionary Competence : ideational functions, manipulative
functions, heuristic functions, and imaginative functions.
Sociolinguistic Competence: sensitivity to dialect or variety,
sensitivity to register, sensitivity to naturalness, and cultu-
ral references and figures of speech.

In recent years, the focus of second language teaching has shifted

from grammar-based to communication-based. The focus of commu-

This content downloaded from 89.164.174.45 on Fri, 04 May 2018 09:11:00 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Ki Hwan Lee 287

nicative teaching is to help students to be able to develop th

necessary to engage in communication with other speakers of th
language. Such a focus has centered on speaking and listening sk
on reading and writing for specific communicative purposes. This
emphasis and goal in foreign language education is a result
challenging reality that schools must somehow enable students t
active participants in global affairs.
Underlying the communicative language teaching movement, a
of important theoretical principles of language behavior and pr
come to mind. The results of studies on age differences in
language acquisition suggest that it is perhaps socially, psycholo
cognitively, and educationally most appropriate to expose stu
second language learning beginning at the elementary level. Bec
interest of second language learning has been centered around
communicative language learning, elementary-level students are most
receptive to the introduction of a second language which focuses on the
ability to function in the language rather than on knowledge about the
language.
Developing and implementing bilingual education programs which
maximizes this receptivity is also imperative to educational interests. The
goal of bilingual education programs is to help students attain a level of
proficient bilingualism. Unlike foreign language programs in which
functional ability to communicate in the target language is the primary
goal, the development of an academic English proficiency is an
important goal for language minority students. According to a study by
Cummins (1981), it takes considerably longer for immigrant students to
develop age-appropriate academic proficiency in English than it does to
develop age-appropriate communicative proficiency. The implications of
this study are that (a) communicative competency is inadequate for
developing academic skills for bilingual students and (b) native language
is a valuable resource for developing the skills necessary for academic
success. This implies that bilingual education programs must be
introduced at the elementary-level to maximize the opportunity to help
foreign language speakers become proficient bilingual students as early as
possible.
Current theories in age differences in second language acquisition are
not particularly helpful in elucidating issues related to the practical
application of these theories in the development of language programs
and instructional strategies. This is because these theories (and

This content downloaded from 89.164.174.45 on Fri, 04 May 2018 09:11:00 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
288 Age Differences in Second Language Acquisition

researchers) fail to incorporate an educational perspective to their

generalizations. To be useful, the theories must have some developmental
context and value from which foreign language and bilingual education
programs can be proposed.
A practical question is whether schools should develop different
frameworks and pedagogical methods for different-aged students.
Considering the fact that younger learners and older learners are faced
with different biological, cognitive, and social conditions for acquiring a
second language, schools and teachers must inevitably develop different
programs and approaches for different age groups in second language
education. Some important criteria to be considered in second language
education are the following.

1. Exposure to a second language should occur early as

possible.
2. Second language learners, particularly older learners must
be encouraged to engage in communication with native
speakers of the second language.
3. Verbal language should be accompanied by non-verbal
messages as much as possible. Situational learning is more
effective than rote learning.
4. Second language learners must continue to strive to
improve cognitive skills.
5. Language interference should be minimized by discou-
raging translation and transliteration whenever possible.
6. Language education must address psychological develop-
ment issues.

7. An effort should be made to develop an academic prof-

iciency as the goal in bilingual education.

Despite concerted efforts of scholars to investigate the relationship

between age and second language acquisition, our understanding of age
differences in second language acquisition is still primitive. The
assumption that younger children can acquire a native-like fluency of a
second language better than adult learners is based on observations with
varying set of concepts that do not reflect the interactive nature of
language and cognitive development, as well as psychological and social
differences. What seems coherent and superior at any given time may
actually have been influenced by cognitive and emotional level of the

This content downloaded from 89.164.174.45 on Fri, 04 May 2018 09:11:00 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Ki Hwan Lee 289

learner, as well as by the social environment in which he/she is i

the moment.

The sensitive period hypothesis is not at all inconsistent with the

importance of various social and environmental input factors affecting
language acquisition. It is oversimplified and erroneous, however, to
conceive that the biological difference between young learners and older
learners is the only explanatory factor assigned to this theory.
Furthermore, tests that involve just one aspect of language competency
without any attempts to control for extraneous variables influencing the
results are highly questionable and suspicious.
Some of the generalizations based on studies investigating the
relationship between age and second language acquisition are as follows.

1. Adults and older children seem to proceed through early

stages of syntactic and morphological development faster
than children.

2. Exposure to second language during childhood seem to

result in high levels of second language proficiency than
those beginning as adults.

The rationale for bilingual education in the United States as provided

by the United States Commission on Civil Rights (1975) is "to ensure
that language minority students do not fall behind in subject matter
content while they are learning English". Granted that this is a broad
statement, language educators must consider the question of what
constitutes language proficiency from both academic and developmental
perspectives. That is, language educators must approach second language
teaching from a perspective in which the application of linguistic theories
of second language acquisition extend beyond pedagogical concerns.
Despite varying results from second language acquisition studies
involving different-aged subjects, some generalizations can be made about
younger learners and older learners. Nevertheless, an important
conclusion based on an examination of various theories on second
language acquisition is that irrespective of age, attaining a high leve
competency is the aspect of second language functioning that can m
be influenced by educational perspectives.

This content downloaded from 89.164.174.45 on Fri, 04 May 2018 09:11:00 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
290 Age Differences in Second Language Acquisition

References

Asher, J., & Garcia, R. (1969). The optimal age to learn a foreign
language. Modern Language Journal. 38, 334-341.
Asher, J., & Price, B. (1967). The learning strategy of total physical
response: some age differences. Child Development. 38, 1219-1227.
Bachman, L. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Braine, M. (1971). The acquisition of language in infant and child. In
C.E. Reed (ed.), The Learning of Languages (pp. 7-95). New York.
Christopherson, P. (1972). Second-Language Learning: Myth and Reality.
Harmonds worth, Middlesex.
Cummins, J. (1979). Cognitive/academic language proficiency, linguistic
Working Papers on Bilingualism. 19, 197-205.
Cummins, J. (1980). The cross-lingual dimensions of language
proficiency: Implications for bilingual education and the optimal age
issue. TESOL Quarterly. 14, 175-187.
Cummins, J. (1981). The role of primary language development in
promoting educational success for language minority students.
Sacramento, CA: California State Department of Education, Office of
Bilingual Bicultural Education.
Gleitman, L., & Gleitman, H. (1970). Phrase and Paraphrase. New
York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Hymes, D. (1967). On communicative competence. Unpublished manus-
cript. University of Pennsylvania.
Krashen, S., Long, M., & Scarcella, R. (1979). Age, rate, and attain-
ment in second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly. 13, 573-582.
Lenneberg, E. (1967). Biological Foundations of Language. New York:
Wiley & Sons.
Olson, L., & Samuels, S. (1973). The relationship between age and
accuracy of foreign language pronunciation. Journal of Educational
Research. 66, 263-267.
Oyama, S. (1973). A sensitive period for the acquisition of second
language. (Doctoral dissertation, Harvard University).
Oyama, S. (1976). A sensitive period for the acquisition of a nonnative
phonological system. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research. 5, 261-285.
Oyama, S. (1978). The sensitive period and comprehension of speech.
Working Papers on Bilingualism. 16, 1-17.
Patkowski, M. (1980). The sensitive period for the acquisition of syntax

This content downloaded from 89.164.174.45 on Fri, 04 May 2018 09:11:00 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Ki Hwan Lee 291

in a second language. Language Learning. 30, 449-472.

Paulston, C. (1974). Linguistic and communicative competence. TE
Quarterly. 8, 347-362.
Penfield, W., & Roberts, L. (1959). Speech and Brain Mechanism
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Seiinger, H., Krashen, S., & Ladefoged, P. (1975). Maturational
constraints in the acquisition of second language. Language Sciences.
38, 20-22.
Snow, C., & Hoefnagel-Hohle, M. (1978). The critical period for lan-
guage acquisition: evidence from second language learning. Child
Development. 49, 1114-1128.

This content downloaded from 89.164.174.45 on Fri, 04 May 2018 09:11:00 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms