Critical Period Hypothesis - Krashen's Opinon

Sunpower · Post by **Sunpower** » Sat Nov 13, 2004 3:09 pm

Does Krashen refute that people have a 'critical period' for language learning?

Also, how relevant is his 'Comprehension Hypothesis?'

Has he provided much evidence for his claims and have other scholars agreed with his assertions?

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Sat Nov 13, 2004 3:49 pm

"Critical period" only makes total sense to me in the context of feral "wolf children" and the like (that is, if children aren't exposed to ANY language before a certain age, they seem to have have little hope of ever being able to learn a language and make much sense of the world).

I don't know if Krashen refutes or even addresses this issue much, because he is more concerned with SLA (Second Language Acquisition); that is, he (and probably everyone else) believes that it is is possible to learn a second language (albeit never to quite the same level as our first).

His ideas about "comprehensibility" (of input, which can aid "acquisition" processes) are useful to consider, if only because approaches can often be either too "mindless" (repetitive, and not addressing meaningful contexts very much) or too "mindful" (explicitly studying grammar and pondering finer distinctions of meaning than is perhaps necessary).

Whether he really has a point about "acquisition" versus "learning" absolutely is another point entirely, however (I recall Jeremy Harmer providing a good discussion of this in the Second Edition of his The Practice of English Language Teaching); I think the important thing is merely that we come to possess insight or knowledge, and both formal and informal encounters can lead to pretty much the same thing somehow ending up in our heads (especially if the context as presented in a classroom were an informal context itself)!

Perhaps the most we can say is that by actually using a language "on the street", for real, we will value whatever encounters we have that bit more, and find them "easier" to recall and more "juicy" or "alive" in retrospect than many classroom encounters (I wonder in which context there is too much English "swirling around" the item in question: classrooms, or the real world?).

In my own experience, I just know that I needed to have some idea of what was possible form-wise (from formal, book learning) to make total sense of and really appreciate whatever informal language spontaneously came my way, so I think Krashen is being a bit silly when he says that learning/studying is unnecessary or almost a bad thing. Even those people I've met who professed to have picked up a language without any formal study turned out to have often asked questions about meaning of their conveniently bilingual wives (their "walking, talking dictionaries"!).

Regarding evidence, I am sure he has done some experiments to back his theories up, but the results are probably open to conjecture. I guess you would need to read his (and Terrell's) works, and any reviews of them. I must admit I haven't read such books myself, whatever knowledge I have of SLA is from more general surveys (which have a tendancy to "sprawl" and lead you around in inconclusive circles). Hopefully somebody with a passion for SLA research findings will reply to your post and answer your questions!

About the best we can do is make sure the models/input we give to students reflect real usage, and think of ways to make those models come alive and be easily understood and appreciated for their hopefully obvious communicative value.

woodcutter · Post by **woodcutter** » Sun Nov 14, 2004 12:09 am

One of the many things that bothers me about "scientific" educational writing is that the evidence provided for many huge claims is "I did this experiment in my class see............". I got the impression that Krashen is relatively well supplied with experimental evidence though.

However, he seems to be one of those scholars who is often metioned in order to be used as a coconut shy, and who gain or retain great fame in the field due to the fact that others see them as the epitome of wrongness.

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Sun Nov 14, 2004 9:48 am

have other scholars agreed with his assertions

Where do you get the idea Krashen is a scholar from?

lolwhites · Post by **lolwhites** » Mon Nov 15, 2004 5:45 pm

I recall from one of my teacher training courses that there was little in the way of conclusive evidence to show that younger people were better than older people at learning a second language. Different studies appeared to give differing results; the only thing they seemed to agree on was that younger learners do better at pronunciation.

woodcutter · Post by **woodcutter** » Tue Nov 16, 2004 12:19 am

How would it actually be possible to gain such conclusive evidence anyway? In what way can the multi-faceted chaos of the classroom be set up so that individual components can be isolated for scientific research? We teach adults and children in different ways, don't we?

lolwhites · Post by **lolwhites** » Tue Nov 16, 2004 9:21 am

I guess that's the point, woodcutter. Since there are so many factors at play, it's not possible to isolate age as a critical one. My experience of teaching English and Spanish to learners of all ages would suggest that age is no more significant than motivation, general attitude to education or time . For example, the student who wants to get into a UK university will probably work harder than your night school student who learns the language as a hobby, while adult students with families to feed and mortgages to pay generally can't learn as effectively as younger learners with more time on their hands. The introvert who won't speak for fear of getting it wrong will make less progress than the learner who has a go and isn't afraid to make a few mistakes. I find that, if anything, age is one of the least significant factors.

Sunpower · Post by **Sunpower** » Wed Nov 17, 2004 3:09 pm

I've read a few studies that either suggest or outright claim to have found evidence of a critical period for language learning in both humans and songbirds (ie. the acquisition of certain grammatical features and phonological features).

I believe that children, over time, make better language learners than adults. Adults can learn more quickly than children in the short term due to their superior cognitive ability. But over time, kids are better learners.

I've also read about "Genie" the girl who was absused and locked away for the first 13 or so years of her life. As per CPH theory, after hitting the age of puberty, she was really never able to acquire the full range of grammatical skills that she would have growing up 'normally.'

Secondly, there are the U.S. immigrant studies that claim to prove the existence of a critical period. Younger immigrants achieved native proficiency in English over time, while older immigrants had a lot less success with the language.

I've also read about "Les", the Japanese man who moved to Hawaii and after many years still did not acquire many grammatical items.

So, I was surprised when Krashen claimed that children are NOT better language learners and that there is no evidence for a critical period, as this contradicts a lot of what I've read in SLA.

lolwhites · Post by **lolwhites** » Wed Nov 17, 2004 4:09 pm

The case of Genie isn't really applicable to the learning of a second language as she hasn't learned language at all. There may well be a critical period to acquire language but that's not the same thing.

Immigrant studies also need to be approached with caution as age may well not be the only factor at play. The children of immigrants may well spend more time among those of their own community, speaking L1 while the children are immersed in L2. Their attitudes to their adoptive country, culture and language may well be different.

My experiences are anecdotal, but when I teach Spanish evening classes to adult beginners of mixed ages, the most sucessful learners are not always the youngest and ability seems to me to be more dictated my attitude, motivation, reason for learning the language and, crucially, whether or not the student has learned other languages before. You can teach an old dog new tricks of he wants to learn, but you can't teach a young cat anything as he'l always do the opposite of what you say.

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Wed Nov 17, 2004 6:02 pm

Crouching cat, hiding hamster! (Oh, and lampost-loving ur*nating senile old fleabag dog)

Sunpower · Post by **Sunpower** » Thu Nov 18, 2004 3:24 pm

The case of Genie isn't really applicable to the learning of a second language as she hasn't learned language at all. There may well be a critical period to acquire language but that's not the same thing.

Good points, for sure.

But why do so many SLA books / courses bring "Genie" up in discussions of SLA?

While you have raised some good points - inicating that there are other factors at play - how do we know that there isn't a 'biological window' of opportunity for second or even first language acquisition?

lolwhites · Post by **lolwhites** » Thu Nov 18, 2004 4:49 pm

But why do so many SLA books / courses bring "Genie" up in discussions of SLA?

Your guess is as good as mine but I think it's misguided. Even children don't use the same strategies when learning an second language as when they acquire a first.

how do we know that there isn't a 'biological window' of opportunity for second or even first language acquisition?

"Genie " provides evidence of a biological window for first language acquisition. As for L2 acquisition, I'm not sure you ever could conclusively prove such a window doesn't exist as that would mean proving a negative. I'm not sure you could prove it does exist either, as you could never conduct an experiment on humans which removed every variable apart from age.