Identificador visual de la campaña “Te Siento Pasochoa”

Butler and Hakuta (2006:126) argue that the age factor is one of the most frequently discussed variable for explaining individual differences in L2 acquisition and Gömleksiz (2001:218) emphasises that a learner’s age is one of the most important factors affecting the process of SLA. While L1 acquisition usually starts at the same time for all L1 learners, there is tremendous variation as to when individuals commence learning an L2.

There is a special relationship between language and the left hemisphere of the brain. Generally speaking we can say that language is controlled by the left hemisphere of the brain. The process whereby one hemisphere of the brain is specialised for the performance of certain functions is known as lateralisation (Lyons 1995:249). The process of lateralisation is maturational, in the sense that it is genetically preprogrammed, but takes time to develop. Lateralisation, which appears to be specific to human beings, is generally thought to begin when the child is about two years old and to be complete at some time between the age of five and the onset of puberty (Lyons 1995:249). Lyons (1995:249) maintains that it is a widely held view nowadays that lateralisation is a precondition of the acquisition of language. A crucial point to consider is the fact that language acquisition begins at about the same time as lateralisation does and is normally complete by the time that the process of lateralisation comes to an end (Lyons 1995:249-250). Further support comes from the fact that it becomes progressively more difficult to acquire language after the age at which lateralisation is complete. Moreover, behavioural tests and brain imaging studies show that late exposure to language alters the fundamental organisation of the brain for language (Fromkin et al. 2007:53). In fact there seems to be what is frequently referred

139

to as a critical age for language acquisition in the sense that language will not be acquired at all, or at least not with full mastery of its resources, unless it is acquired by the time the child reaches the age in question.

The critical period hypothesis assumes that language is biologically based (Fromkin et al. 2007:53) and claims that it is not possible to acquire a native-like level of proficiency when learning of an L2 starts after a critical period, normally associated with puberty (Adamson 2005:33, De Bot et al. 2005:65). This position is most strongly associated with acquiring the phonological system of an L2. Long (in Bongaerts 2005:259) argues that studies conducted to date warranted the conclusion that “ability to attain native-like phonological abilities in an L2 begins to decline by age six in many individuals and to be beyond anyone beginning later than age twelve, no matter how motivated they might be or how much opportunity they might have. Native-like morphology and syntax only seem to be possible for those beginning before age fifteen”. Children deprived of language during this critical period show atypical patterns of brain lateralisation (Fromkin et al. 2007:53).

This hypothesis was grounded in research which revealed that people who lost their linguistic capabilities, for example as a result of an accident, were able to regain them totally before puberty [about the age of twelve] but were unable to do so afterwards (Ellis 2000:67). The concept of critical period has been extended to L2 acquisition in that English proficiency declines after the age of seven when Chinese or Korean speakers move to the United States (Sakai 2005:816; Adamson 2005:33).

There is also considerable evidence to support the claim that L2 learners who begin learning as adults are unable to achieve native-speaker competence in either grammar or pronunciation. For example, studies of immigrant learners in the United States indicate that if they arrive before puberty they go on to achieve much higher levels of grammatical proficiency than if they arrive after. Sometimes they become indistinguishable from native speakers (Ellis 2000:68).

Mc Laughlin (in Fathman & Precup 1983:152) states that there is no conclusive evidence that there is a critical [sensitive] period of language or that there are, indeed, definite child-adult differences in language learning. However, there is a preponderance of research evidence that supports the critical period hypothesis. For example, the case of Genie, an abused girl who was

140

totally isolated from all language input and interaction in the early years of her life and consequently did not start learning language [English] until the age of thirteen. Genie never developed linguistic knowledge and skills for her L1 that were compatible to those of speakers who began acquisition in early childhood (Curtiss in Hyltenstam & Abrahamsson 2003:543; Ellis 2000:68; Saville-Troike 2012:88; Lyons 1995:250; Fromkin et al. 2007:53).

Another example is the case of Isabelle which illustrates the effects of being severely deprived of linguistic input (Curtiss in Hyltenstam & Abrahamsson 2003:543). Isabelle had been hidden away in an attic and given only minimal attention until she was discovered at the age of six. While Isabelle reached native-like level of fluency after only one year of exposure, Genie stopped at a level similar to that of two-year-olds. The differences between the two cases of Isabelle and Genie support the view that a pronounced decrease in potential to acquire native-like proficiency in an L1 occurs between the age of seven [Isabelle] and puberty [Genie].

Furthermore, Schachter (1997:13) reinforces her argument that adults have so much difficulty learning an L2 and almost never reach the level of completeness that would let them pass as native speakers of the L2. Accordingly, Long (in Bongaerts 2005:264), after reviewing literature on the critical period hypothesis affirmed his position: “My position was then, and remains, that in terms of absolute language learning capacity, only young child starters can [not necessarily will] attain native-like proficiency levels”. He argues that, while counter-evidence to the critical period hypothesis has been advanced in a number of studies, there are various problems with this counter-evidence, for example measurement of age of acquisition, unreliable or invalid measures, faulty interpretation of statistical patterns, and so forth.

There is a major paradox when comparing the acquisition of L2 by children and adults. Children learn an L2 more slowly than adults, yet the earlier an individual begins to learn an L2 the better he or she will speak it (Oyama, Seliger, Krashen & Ladefoged in Snow 1983:144-145). Snow (1983:145) considers an example of a five-year-old and a fifty-year-old both learning an L2. The five-year-old learns much slower than the fifty-year-old. Nonetheless, five years later, the five- year-old now ten speaks the L2 much better than the fifty-year-old, now fifty five. In other words, children can learn more slowly but keep going longer, to the point where they ultimately catch up with and surpass adult learners. Thus, it is important to distinguish between two aspects

141

of L2 acquisition when considering age differences: speed of acquisition, and ultimate level of achievement. Child L2 learners excel in the second aspect, ultimate level of achievement, but adult L2 learners excel in the first aspect, speed of acquisition.

Following the critical period hypothesis, it has often been concluded that educators should take advantage of this ease of learning by teaching an L2 as early as possible (Cook 2008:147). However, educators need to be cautious not to submerge L2 learners in English medium classrooms and take cognisance of the fact that L2 learners can benefit tremendously by early exposure to additive bilingual or multilingual programmes in the formative years. In this way these young L2 learners would be able to ultimately achieve higher levels of L2 proficiency; not only the development of speaking skills but also reading and writing skills.

The inference drawn from the critical period hypothesis indicates that the ability of isiZulu- speaking learners to attain native-like phonological abilities in English will begin to decline by age six in many learners and to be beyond any learners beginning later than age twelve. Although this research study focuses on learners between ages five and ten this study via the observation and questionnaires will help to provide evidence either supporting or refuting the critical period hypothesis.

Another fundamental aspect related to age is the age at which the child is enrolled in Grade 1. Banerji (2013:6) analysed the reading level of Grade 1 learners by age and school type in India. Based on the 2013 ASER, she emphasised that age matters in the early grades within the same types of schools [government and private]. She stresses that older children seem to have a definite advantage in learning. If we compare across school types, the differences are also clear. The comparison is most stark when we compare the two extremes in age in Grade 1 – youngest children in government schools with oldest children in private schools. When Banerji (2013:7) compared the cohort that was in Grade 1 in 2009, moved to Grade 3 in 2011 and Grade 5 in 2013, it was found that the learning disadvantages of the youngest children in the cohort that was visible in Grade 1 persists over time. Banerji (2013:7) concluded that the youngest children in government schools simply never catch up with their older counterparts or those in private schools. Relatively speaking, this group of children [who were five when they started their

142

formal schooling {Grade1} in government schools] continued to be the weakest group two years later in Grade 3 and another two years later in Grade 5.

In South Africa learners are admitted to Grade 1 at the age of five. This early entry level has implications for all learners’ educational achievements which are compounded as the years progress. The situation becomes even more complex when it involves L2 learners. From Banerji’s (2013:7) conclusion regarding the age of Grade 1 learners, one can only deduce that L2 learners entering Grade 1 at age five will most definitely experience academic difficulties. When it comes to more demanding tasks such as reading and writing, the problems are exacerbated. Banerji (2013:7) reinforces that one of the factors that contribute to early enrollments is the rising educational aspirations and the assumption that more schooling is better often leads parents to enroll their children early in school. This study will generate information on age that will either lend support or refute Banerji’s conclusions.

3.3.8 Concluding annotations on the factors that impact on the English second language