~Table of Contents~
|No. |Content |Page(s) | |1. |Article background/Bibliographic information |3 | |2. |Introduction |4 – 6 | |3. |Summary |7 - 8 | |4. |Critique |9 - 12 | |5. |Conclusion |13 – 15 | |6. |References |16 - 17 |
Author: Andy Schouten
Title of the article: The Critical Period Hypothesis: Support, Challenge and Reconceptualization
Name of journal: The Critical Period Hypothesis
Date/year of publication: 2009
General introduction of the article
What is the article about?
It is generally agreed that learning a language is easier for younger than older people, where the measure of success is ultimate achievement. This created the mystery of whether or not there is some type of critical or sensitive period for language learning. Casual observers and scholars noticed that children have advantage over adult in acquiring language before reaching a certain age which believed to be around puberty.
According to Lenneberg(1967), he rely that there’s a structural reorganization within the brain during puberty and unlearned language will remain undeveloped. Lenneberg even hypothesized that language learned outside this critical period would be abnormal or insufficient. It’s hard to confirm whether the hypothesis is working everyone are exposed to enough stimuli during childhood, which allow the development of the first language. Many learners failed to acquire proficiency in learning their second language after puberty, with this, many people believe that an adult learner is destined to incomplete mastery.
In some exceptional case, several researches have hypothesized that, although rare, nativelike proficiency in a second language is in fact possible for adult learners ,which lead to the weak version of Critical Period Hypothesis(Krashen, 1975). This hypothesis suggested that late learner can compensate their early linguistic exposure by increasing the exposure to the language at a later stage in life. Krashen believe that it is possible for late learner to achieve native like proficiency.
Research on both supporting and challenging the CPH have reconceptualized their views regarding a possible critical period for language learning, claiming that in combination with age of exposure, sociological, psychological and physiological factors must also be considered when determining the factors that facilitate and debilitate language acquisition. In this research article, Andy Schouten will further discuss about the division of opinion vis-à-vis the CPH in three stages. Firstly, he will provide a review of the literature which supports the notion that a critical period exists for second language acquisition. Next, he will review studies that put forward a variety of data which challenge the validity of the CPH. And last but not least, he will discuss various studies which have provided a basis for reconceptualization of the CPH so as to address some of its perceived weaknesses.
Is information contained in the article relevant?
Yes, it is applicable because through this journal, it brings out the main points that occur in...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document