A critical period for second language acquisition: Evidence from 2/3 million English speakers

[s_allard]

So let's compare a class where the 6-year child hears French <snip> What is the end result in terms of French proficiency? Sure, it's not native-like

Secondly, now take that 25-year old starting French. <snip> will that person attain proficiency comparable to that of a native of the same age? Very unlikely.

So they are the same?

A very good question. If my statements had been quoted completely, it should have been clear that exposure to French at a very early age leads to especially good results in terms of phonetics and fluidity. But since I was not quoted correctly, it's a good opportunity to clarify my position. I do not doubt that a 25-year old beginner of French can reach excellent proficiency with the right tools, techniques, talent, interaction with native speakers and lots of time. Many people in this forum are a testament to that.

But take a 25-year old who has had ten or even just five years of French immersion as a kid and decides to take up French in order to pass the language test for a job with the Canadian federal government. Which of the two 25-year olds will have a better outcome after, let's say, one year of French? I'll let the readers guess.

And take the example of people who are truly bilingual, i.e. equally at ease in two languages. In all the examples that I have met the people learned both languages as children, often from a bilingual home or by attending school in the other language. I have never met anyone who became truly bilingual starting at age 25.

[Saim]

But take a 25-year old who has had ten or even just five years of French immersion as a kid and decides to take up French in order to pass the language test for a job with the Canadian federal government. Which of the two 25-year olds will have a better outcome after, let's say, one year of French? I'll let the readers guess.

No-one would dispute that because there's nothing to dispute. One of the two 25-year olds has had more meaningful exposure to French, so they have less new things to learn and can thus advance faster. Of course the outcome will be different if the starting point is different.

The point of contention is not whether it's generally better to start earlier. Obviously time is a major factor in acquisition, so starting earlier, all other things being equal, is going to be better.

The issue is whether children and teenagers are cognitively better at learning languages than adults, or whether it's primarily due to breadth/quantity of exposure. And if there is a cognitive advantage, to what extent is there an advantage, in what contexts does it manifest, and up til what age is it applicable (8? 12? 15? 18?)?

It's probably also "better" to start learning a language at 18 than at 23 but I think there's very little reason to think that that's due to cognitive differences between 18 and 23 year olds.

[Cainntear]

I have to strongly disagree with two statements here. First of all, I don't see the failure of immersion schools, at least not in Canada and I doubt anywhere in the world. But we have to clarify one thing. The goal of immersion education is not to produce native-like speakers of the target language. This is impossible.

But that's subjective, as it rests on your definition of success.

There are examples in many minority language situations of kids coming out of immersive education and not being understood by local elders. There have been heated discussions in these forums regarding the "neo-Hawai'ian" emerging from non-native immersion in Hawai'i, and similar situations for Scottish Gaelic and Breton.

I personally spent time in an after-school club for Gaelic-medium primary kids, and even after 4 or 5 years of immersion, they would never say "I went" or "I will go", only "I was going" and "I will be going".

The real goal of bilingual and immersion schools is to expose the children to the target language during that critical learning period and form the basis for good proficiency should the children decide to pursue the language or learning in the language at a later age. As I stated in my previous post, you have to compare immersion education to non-immersion.

You say the goal is "the basis for good proficiency", yet you seem to object to my problem with the significant non-native errors emerging from the system. Fossilised errors at an early age may not be problematic where your main goal is to be understood by someone who doesn't speak your first language, but where there's a goal of more than simply transactional language, that's not enough.

So let's compare a class where the 6-year child hears French, is spoken to in French and attempts with varying success to speak French all day, five days a week. There are limitations of course: French is not spoken at home or outside the school. But compare that to no French at all or two hours of French a week.

And now you're really arguing against something no-one said, in two ways.
Firstly, I made an explicit distinction between "true immersion" (in a class with native speakers) and "pseudo-immersion" (a bunch of non-natives together) and you're ignoring that; secondly, you're explicitly lumping together "no French at all" and "two hours of French a week", which are very different things.

As I recall it, one of the things that research in the UK suggested was that kids with a few hours of weekly French at primary failed to acquire gender marking successfully, and struggled to correct this fossilised error during high schooling; kids that started at high school, on the other hand, have a reasonable degree of success with gender.

The thing about immersion classes is that there is no question of wanting or not wanting to learn French. It is the language of instruction. If the immersion setting doesn't work, then the child can switch to the regular program. Any many kids do drop out of immersion for various reasons.

That therefore makes the results of Canadian French immersion programmes a poor example, because there are precious few primary education systems in the world where children can fail out or drop out. It makes the success of those that complete a rather tautologous statistic: 100% of successful learners succeed.

But I have to take particular exception to this:

The thing about immersion classes is that there is no question of wanting or not wanting to learn French.

Oh yes there is. There is what the kids speak to each other when the teacher's not listening. There's the language of the playground between classes. There's the choice of TV to watch when they go home.

That's part of the difference between true immersion and pseudo immersion -- the immigrant kid you mentioned earlier in the thread can't just walk out of the classroom and immediately start chatting in Spanish or Dari or Hakka or whatever, because the other kids won't understand him, and when he goes home, the locally available TV will be in English or French or whatever, and even if his parents have a VPN and access to streams from home, the kid will still want to watch the same programmes as their friends. That's massively different from a bunch of English-speaking kids in an English-speaking area going to French-medium school.

What is the end result in terms of French proficiency? Sure, it's not native-like, but two things really stand out: good phonetics and fluidity.

That is the difference between a good school and a bad school, it is not the "magic" of immersion. It's often said that the further you go from Quebec, the less effective the "Canada model" is. The programme was at its most successful in French-speaking areas, less so in English-speaking areas, less so again in the USA, and never really replicated with much success in countries further afield.

I have seen literally hundreds of students of French and inevitably those that have good pronunciation and feel at ease even with all the limitations come from an immersion background. When they are studying French with me they say it's a lot like rediscovering things that had learned in childhood. And that's the whole idea.

But that relies on them actually learning those things in the first place.

Secondly, now take that 25-year old starting French.

I started learning Scottish Gaelic at 25. My vocabulary has always been limited due to lack of use, but my phonetics and accuracy are far better than tons of people I've met who went through primary schooling in the language. They often pronounce the language with English phonetics, and construct phrases based on English idiom, including literal translation of English tense and aspect instead of using Gaelic tense and aspect.
While I've met many adult learners who never achieve mastery, all the non-natives I've met who achieved good results outside of those who moved to a genuinely Gaelic-speaking area at a young age are people who have learned as adults.

[s_allard]

The point of contention is not whether it's generally better to start earlier. Obviously time is a major factor in acquisition, so starting earlier, all other things being equal, is going to be better.

The issue is whether children and teenagers are cognitively better at learning languages than adults, or whether it's primarily due to breadth/quantity of exposure. And if there is a cognitive advantage, to what extent is there an advantage, in what contexts does it manifest, and up til what age is it applicable (8? 12? 15? 18?)?

It's probably also "better" to start learning a language at 18 than at 23 but I think there's very little reason to think that that's due to cognitive differences between 18 and 23 year olds.

This point is well taken. Is there really a critical period, cognitively speaking, for language learning or is it simply a question that earlier is better? As I said in a previous post, the debate about age tends to obscure the presence of the other factor(s) such as the learning environment and questions of personality.

As difficult as it may be to disentangle the various factors, there seems to be something special about exposure to a secondary language before the age of around 18. Is there a huge difference between 18 and 23? Probably not huge but the idea is that this critical period starts to taper off at around 17.

Why are we even talking about a critical period in the first place if it's just a question of earlier is better? Starting a language at 25 is probably better than at 35 and 35 is better than at 50, etc, so what's the point of starting at 5? That's true but what is also true is that the best results, especially phonetically, happen when one starts at a very early age.

I happen to believe that the so-called critical period for secondary language learning is simply the period of all language learning, including one's native language. Bilingual people are people who have learned both languages basically at the same time. This critical cognitive period for language learning explains why early exposure leads to good phonetic ability. The secondary language is being acquired more or less at the same time as the native one.

Similarly, I would argue that the reason it is so hard to learn a language at a later age is simply the dominant presence of the native language. The secondary language is not really being acquired; it's being layered on to the first and this creates all sorts of problems of interference of which we are all aware.

But at the end of the day, whether we believe in cognitive age differences or not, I'm convinced that nearly all the participants of this forum - with some exceptions - believe that the best time to be exposed to other languages is at an early age. I would go so far as to say that all parents and all education systems in the world, certainly in the European Union, agree.

Edit: added "it"

[Cainntear]

Why are we even talking about a critical period in the first place if it's just a question of earlier is better?

Because no-one here can go back in time to start learning earlier, so that point is hardly relevant. The critical period hypothesis is a point of discussion for two reasons:
1) because it often leads people to believe they've "left it too late to learn", an idea that certainly hampers achievement; and
2) because the critical period hypothesis has repercussions for techniques and methods of learning.

These are things that are directly relevant to people on this board.

The real question is why are you so interested in this thread if you find it so trivial and pointless? Why not leave those of us who are interested in the topic to discuss it instead?

I happen to believe that the so-called critical period for secondary language learning is simply the period of all language learning, including one's native language.

And that's where the critical period becomes interesting -- is there a difference between native language and adult-learned language? Is a native bilingual biologically or psychologically different from an adult bilingual? What does this tell us about the appropriate techniques for study at different stages of life?

Bilingual people are people who have learned both languages basically at the same time. This critical cognitive period for language learning explains why early exposure leads to good phonetic ability.

But only early exposure to a good model, and this why early teaching can just as often lead to absolutely awful phonetic ability. In a classroom where no-one nasalises French vowels in words like "un", "en" etc, that element of pronunciation will never be acquired. I've taught high school kids in Spain and Italy who've had English instruction since the start of primary schooling, and they can't pronounce the difference between "six" and "seeks", which is particularly problematic for me because the slight fronting of the vowel in a Scottish accent means they all think my "six" sounds like "sex" (even their fluent teachers).

I used to know a French tutor in Edinburgh who spoke English with a very heavy French accent, because throughout his schooling he'd been exposed to French-accented English, not natural English. He never pronounced either TH correctly. He could -- he new the articulatory phonetics and could pronounce English very naturally-sounding when demonstrating a conscious point of pronunciation, but the model of the language he worked from automatically was totally set, and he had found himself unable to do otherwise.

Why? Fossilised errors -- or if you prefer, the interference from previously-learned language. He knew he could learn to speak English right, but he knew it meant relearning the whole language and was simply too big a task.

But more than this, a great many studies have shown that the biggest influence on kids' phonetic systems is their peers. Young kids will favour the accents of their friends over their parents and teachers. Studies in bilingual classrooms have shown that where the native speakers are less than 50% of the class, kids will not acquire an accurate model of the target language.

I have seen this in English, and I have seen this in Scottish Gaelic. Kids who speak in L1 phonemes and L1 idiom, using some degree of L2 words and grammar. They come out of school thinking they can speak the language, and continue with their fossilised errors.

You say adults struggle with phonetics... but maybe that's because we've rarely been teaching them. Of all the high-level adult learners I've met in all the languages I've studied, the most successful are those of us who've taken the time to understand the articulatory phonetics. Right now, that mostly means consciously studying articulatory phonetics outside of the classroom, but there are teachers who incorporate it into their teaching in a way that's less conscious for the student.

An infant can learn pronunciation from exposure, but can't be taught articulatory phonetics; an adult can learn near-perfect pronunciation through articulatory phonetics, but will struggle to learn accurate pronunciation from exposure. High school kids fairly often get some level of basic articulatory phonetics. This is one of the normal points of discussion over where the critical period ends.

The secondary language is being acquired more or less at the same time as the native one.

This is only true if you're talking about preschoolers, so yet again you're conflating lots of different variables and situations into one.

Similarly, I would argue that the reason it is so hard to learn a language at a later age is simply the dominant presence of the native language. The secondary language is not really being acquired; it's being layered on to the first and this creates all sorts of problems of interference of which we are all aware.

By primary age, children already have a dominant first language.

But at the end of the day, whether we believe in cognitive age differences or not, I'm convinced that nearly all the participants of this forum - with some exceptions - believe that the best time to be exposed to other languages is at an early age. I would go so far as to say that all parents and all education systems in the world, certainly in the European Union, agree.

See, what I find infinitely frustrating about conversations with you is that you state something, I give a counterargument, and then you repeat your original statement, sweeping aside my counterargument without addressing or acknowledging it.

Scientific truth is not a democracy -- no number of people holding an erroneous belief overturns empirically-observed data.

No researchers I've come across think that early starting with language is an unqualified good thing.

[leosmith]

Based on what I have read and observed, I believe that in the beginning period of one's life it is possible acquire native pronunciation in foreign languages. After that, only native-like pronunciation is possible. I could be wrong, but I don't think there is anything more to the critical period than that. Because I'm beyond that early period, I know I can't achieve native pronunciation, but I don't care.

[s_allard]

I acknowledge that not everybody believes there is a critical period for language learning in general and for secondary languages in particular. I recognize and respect that some people believe that adults can learn a foreign language just as well as children. And these same people often demonstrate outstanding language skills that they acquired as adults. I know that some people believe it is not worthwhile exposing children to foreign languages at an early age because these languages can be learned just as well later in life. Having said that, I will say that I have never met anyone who became perfectly bilingual or multilingual after the age of 20 but I see every day many examples of adults who grew up bilingually.

I should point out that in the very first post in this thread there is a slide - in French mind you but it shouldn't be a problem - that shows as clear as day that (all) studies show that good accent (bon accent) and good grammar (bonne syntaxe) are best acquired at age five rather than 20. I didn't make this up.

As a matter of fact, one could probably say that pretty much any skill with major cognitive and motor components is best started at an early age. Although some people probably believe that a musical instrument such as the piano or the violin is best learned later in life, most parents - I no longer say all - believe that early is best. I don't know if there are any concert pianists who started the instrument after the age of 20.

So, I will take back my earlier statement that all parents and all education systems in the world believe that foreign languages are best started at an early age. Let's say most, including the European Commission that writes:

"The European Commission is working together with national governments to meet an ambitious goal – for all citizens to learn at least two foreign languages and to begin learning foreign languages at an early age. "
https://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/multilingualism/about-multilingualism-policy_en

At this point in my life, as I struggle with Russian pronunciation, one of my biggest regrets is that my parents didn't use the services of Svetlana, a Russian babysitter who lived in our building when I was a little kid. Maybe she would have read stories to me in Russian or taught me how to sing in Russian.

Not far from where I live there is a daycare centre that proudly advertises that the pre-school toddlers are exposed to three languages: English, French and Spanish. I think they're on to something.

Edit: added "are"

[iguanamon]

My biggest issue with posts about the "critical period" are that they are simply not relevant to me. I do not posses a time machine and cannot go back in time to when I was five years old. Other than serving as advice to parents of young children, there is no relevance to most of us here on the forum.

Most of us probably missed the "critical period". Henry Kissinger, former US Secretary of State and National Security adviser moved to the US at 15 years old in 1938. He never lost his German accent despite living in the US most of his life. Some say that Henry was too shy to speak much after moving to the US, and of course, adolescence comes with a lot of issues in itself. I'm sure having a pronounced German accent in the time just before World War II wasn't an asset back then. His brother, one year younger, has a native American English accent. I remember reading once that his brother was asked about the difference in the two brothers' accents and he said something along the lines of "I listen to people, Henry doesn't".

It didn't stop Kissinger from graduating magna cum laude from one of the top universities in the US, Harvard. He then went on to rise to the top levels of The US government.

More recently, Arnold Schwarzenegger, moved to the US at 21 years old speaking little English. He worked hard to become an actor, and to be taken seriously as an actor, which, regardless of what one may think of his acting skills or his accent, he landed several blockbuster roles. He, also, rose to a high level in government becoming Governor of California. His accent became his trademark

Neither of these men ever managed to lose their accents, but, their grammar skills, it's safe to say, are solid. You don't rise to the levels they did without mastering English even if their accents aren't native. I'd take that.

...(Director) Jim Cameron after "Terminator" said, look, this movie only worked because Arnold talks like a machine. When you listen to him, it's like a machine. That's why it worked that he played the Terminator, and that's how we could sell the character. Otherwise it would have never worked. ...

I remember reading Arnold's memoir in Portuguese, several years ago. He talked about how he was told he would never make it in Hollywood because of his accent. In his first film "Hercules", his voice was dubbed. He actually hired an accent coach (Robert Easton) to reduce his accent, but he determined it wasn't the best use of his time. He was becoming a real estate investor in addition to gaining rolls in acting. His phenomenal body got him in the door and the accent was secondary to that. He worked hard and his accent ended up being an asset instead of a liability. He said his most important classes were his acting classes.

Kissinger had a tremendous intellect, whether one agreed with his policies or not. So, which was more important to his career, his accent or his intellect? Concentrating on their strong points obviously was what worked best for both of these famous men.

Adult second language-learners can, and do, work on their accents. There are people here who do have more than passable accents in L2. It's worth the trouble to try even if we may never master it as a native does. My goal in language-learning is not to pass for a native, but to be able to pronounce words well enough not to cause trouble for a native-speaker conversation partner. If someone in Lisbon asks me how long I lived in Brazil (three weeks), that's a success for me.

[s_allard]

I tend to agree with iguanamon, these debates about a critical period are rather irrelevant for our needs here. But I should mention that when I was around the age of 8 - 10, my parents made me attend a Saturday morning church school for children of the German community here in Montreal. I wasn't particularly interested but we sang songs, studied the language and learned prayers. Many years later I credit that experience with having given me a decent accent and helping me with the B2 exam.

[Saim]

Other than serving as advice to parents of young children

I'd say as advice without any other qualifications it leads to some weird outcomes, like parents talking to their children in broken English so they can get a "headstart", imposing English as the medium of instruction where teaching staff doesn't have the competence to pull it off (in Spain, in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa), or throwing money at language classes that don't take them anywhere.

All things being equal, yes, earlier exposure is better. But too many people seem to treat it as a magic formula. That's the sort of thing that I'd say we need to push back at.

By primary age, children already have a dominant first language.

And so do those who grow up as native bilinguals at home, and it's generally not both languages. The later competence of heritage speakers is extremely variable and doesn't seem to be explicable by the single factor of how early they start (since, I mean, they by definition couldn't have started earlier). In my own experience I had to relearn Serbian as a teenager/adult to even begin to approximate anything like native usage, even though yes having it at home made comprehension, pragmatics and so on fairly straightforward.