Age and Language Acquisition by adultesljobs com

CCE 510/TESOL 410 Carmen Avila Cervera, Andrew Blick, Ben Estes, Marie Graves

Introductory Slide For Dr. Catherine Collier’s “Second Language Acquisition” course

•

Krashen’s Theory of SLA

• The Learning/Acquisition Hypothesis • The Affective Filter Hypothesis • The Critical Period Hypothesis

Ben Krashen’s Theory of SLA has 5 primary interrelated hypotheses, of which two apply more specifically to the function of age in SLA (Freeman and Freeman, 2004, 35). The two that can apply are: •The Learning/Acquisition Hypothesis •The Affective Filter Hypothesis These two theories can be applied when examining age as a factor in SLA, especially the differences between children and adult learning patterns and behaviors. 1.The Learning/Acquisition Hypothesis Krashen describes two ways of Second Language development. These two ways are ‘the acquired system’ and ‘the learned system.’ ‘The Learning system’ is what Krashen describes as the high school or foreign language class setting. The learning system is a conscious process “that involves studying rules and vocabulary (Freeman and Freeman, 2004, 35).” The Learning system is a process of formal instruction and requires a conscious effort to acquire a language. ‘The Acquired system’ is an unconscious process unlike the ‘Learning System.’ Usually in the school setting but can take place both in an outside of school (Freeman and Freeman, 2004, 36). This process is very similar to the process that children undertake as they acquire a first or second language. According to Krashen the acquisition system is more important than the learning system. 5. The Affective filter Hypothesis The fifth hypothesis that Krashen proposed discusses the possible affective variables that a learner may encounter. The variables related to age can include self‐consciousness in adults versus children and the impact on language acquisition (Freeman and Freeman, 2004, 43). Others such as motivation and anxiety are also important. Krashen suggests that learners with high motivation, self‐confidence, a good self‐image, and a low level of anxiety

•

The Critical Period Hypothesis • Eric Lenneberg (1967)

Ben Many of the issues from Krashen’s Theories are analyzed further in the Critical Period Hypothesis. Critical Period Hypothesis (CPH) states that there is a limited developmental period during which it is possible to acquire a language, be it L1 or L2, to normal, nativelike levels. Once this window of opportunity is passed, however, the ability to learn a language declines (Birdsong, 1999, 1). The theory was advanced and popularized by Eric Lenneberg in 1967 in his work Biological foundations of Language. Lenneberg proposed that the brain’s ability to acquire language is stopped at puberty with the onset of brain lateralization. This theory has been widely disputed however (McLaughlin, 1984, 46). The critical period for language learning is usually defined as lasting from about age 2 to puberty. After puberty the natural acquisition of language is thought to be blocked by a loss of ‘cerebral plasticity’ resulting from the completion of cerebral development and lateralization (McLaughlin, 1984, 46). The explanation is a casual one because the bulk of the variance in achievement as a function of age is attributed to maturation changes in the brain that alter the possibility of successful acquisition (Birdsong, 1999, 162). In the end the CPH states that: • Children are better second language learners than adults because their brains are specially organized to learn language, whereas those of adults are not (Birdsong, 1999, 176). • The ability of young children to acquire a language quickly and efficiently and without an accent is regarded as support for the Critical Period Hypothesis (McLaughlin, 1984, 46). • Image Source: http://www.ling.su.se/fon/phoneticians/Gubbar.html 3

•

Neurological and Biological Evidence • Lateralization

Ben Neurological Evidence Lateralization As we know, studies of the brain have shown that different areas of the brain are associated with different functions. There is much evidence in “neurological research that as the human brain matures certain functions are assigned –or ‘lateralized’ –to the left hemisphere of the brain and other functions to the right hemisphere (Freeman and Freeman, 2004, 42). Language is one of the functions located in the left hemisphere. Lateralization of the brain begins at about age 2. Although not all researchers agree when lateralization is complete. This is an example of why the CPH is still controversial since there is not a definitive know end point in terms of age, brain development and lateralization. However, many researchers have concluded that by puberty, the brain is almost completely lateralized into two hemispheres. Children who acquire a SL before puberty usually speak without an accent. Older learners, however, generally speak the SL with an accent. With this evidence, researchers proposed that humans are no longer able to acquire some aspects of language once the brain is lateralized AND that language is lateralized into the left hemisphere (Freeman and Freeman, 2004, 43.) This coincides with the CHP in that the critical period for SLA is the period prior to changes in the brain associated with lateralization (Freeman and Freeman, 2004, 43.) Image source:http://www.medem.com/MEDEM/images/ama/ama_brain_stroke_lev20_t hebraineffectsstroke_01.gif

The Critical Period Hypothesis

◦ Do you agree with this hypothesis?

Plasticity

Multilinguals, age, and their brains

Relation between CPH and Plasticity

Is one person’s brain hard-wired to learn a second language more than others?

Andrew I will start with introducing what this section covers, and ask the class if they agree with the critical period hypothesis (as was introduced in the class). With regards to the second question “is one person’s brain…” I will integrate the following quote, “we cannot, and do not need to teach the normally functioning brain to perform. Moreover, across gender, race, culture, age, all the organs of the body have similar functions and processes” (Smilkstein, 2003, 51) “The origin of grammatical rules should thus be ascribed to an innate system in the human brain (1). The knowledge of and competence for human language is acquired through various means and modality types. Linguistics regard speaking, singing, and language comprehension as primary faculties of language, i.e., innate or inherent and biologically determined, whereas they regard reading and writing as secondary abilities.” (Sakai, 2005, 815) Resources used for this slide Sakai, K. L. (2005) Language Acquisition and Brain Development. In Science (310. 815), pp. 815‐819. Washington DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science. Smilkstein, R. (2003) We’re Born to Learn: Using the Brain’s Natural Learning Process to Create Today’s Curriculum. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press, Inc.

The critical period hypothesis states that the optimum time for one to learn a second language is between birth and puberty, and after puberty, the ability to learn a second language with native like proficiency severely decreases. “During this period children can learn a language (or several languages) with relative ease; after the age of 13 it becomes increasingly hard to acquire a language, and the result of learning becomes less and less perfect…” (Komarova, 2001, 1189)

Andrew This slide will serve as a short introduction to Marie’s slides. The point is to allow for students to refresh their memory on the critical period hypothesis and how it applies to language acquisition. Resources used for this slide Komarova, N. L. & M. A. Nowak. (2001) Natural selection of the critical period for language acquisition. In Proceedings: Biological Sciences (267. 1472), pp. 1189‐1196. London: The Royal Society

Marie What CP should look like If the CPH were correct, we would expect the data to fall into one of these two patterns with a clearly defined point of CP closure (Hakuta 2003).

Proposed CP ages: 2, 4, 5, 9, 12, 15, 20 ` Older-is-better data? ` Exceptional learners `

Marie Data from the 1990 Census indicates that language learning/proficiency follows a linear graph that has no abrupt changes in it (Bialystok & Hakuta 1999). In a review of the relevant research one finds several ages cited as the hypothetical CP. These conflicting propositions undermine their primary claim that a CP does exist (Singleton 2007). By carefully analyzing previous studies, Lee (2004) found much evidence to support the young‐is‐better notion predicted by the CPH. He discovered an equal amount of evidence for the old‐is‐better idea which CP theorists cannot explain and consequently disregard. CPH also fails to account for the numerous exceptional adult learners who appear to have achieved native‐like proficiency (Singleton 200

The sensitive period is a revision on the critical period that states that there is a time frame in which it is much easier to acquire language. (Haskell, 2007)

Andrew The sensitive period does not contain the same parameters as the critical period. That is, it does not have a “steep” drop‐off, as found in the critical period hypothesis, but rather presents a gradual decline that results in a decrease in the ability to learn a language (which makes it more difficult, but not impossible as stated in the critical period). “The notion of a sensitive period for language acquisition comes from the loss of flexibility for cerebral reorganization due to acquired aphasia after puberty (10). The concept of the sensitive period has been extended to L2 acquisition in that English proficiency declines after the age of 7 years when Chinese or Korean speakers move to the United States (11).” (Sakai, 2005, 816) This paragraph summarizes exactly how the sensitive period works. It divides language acquisition phases into three stages, 0‐7 (some argue that it is up to 14 and completely replaces critical period) “Sensitive;” 7‐14 critical; 14+ post‐critical. With this slide, I will hopefully engage students in thinking that even within the realm of psycholinguistics there are many different representations of language acquisition, and that they do not have to believe one just because it was presented in a text. Resources used for this slide Image taken from http://www.thefinalclub.org/blogs/spring2008/HumanMind/?p=74 on May 10th, 2008. Lecture notes: Haskell, T. (2007) Psychology of Language (Psychology 297/Linguistics 402).Western Washington University, Bellingham, WA.

Plasticity: The ability of the brain to grow and change, (dendrite growth rate). Dendrites: The tree branches of a neuron. Grow out of the cell body. Synapses: The connectors between dendrites and cell bodies.

Andrew “The structure of the human brain is altered by the experience of acquiring a second language” (van den Noort, 2006, 2294). What this means is that when a second language is acquired/learned the dendrites in the brain get “excited” and begin to grow. Even though the level of plasticity increases with age, with constant input (that is relevant and new) the dendrites will still be able to grow. My personal theory is that the sensitive/critical period occurs because the brain is still adapting to the “norm” of the environment, then after it adapts, the person must motivate their brain to learn because the “normal” environment is not sufficient. “if a dendrite or synapse is not being used for a period of time, it can be eliminated” (Smilkstien, 2003, 59) “use it or lose it” (2003, 59) this process is referred to as pruning. The concept of pruning is important because it directly relates to the common idea that if you don’t speak a language it leaves your mind. If you don’t use a language the dendrites containing that information are pruned. When they are pruned they can be reactivated, but it will increase with difficulty over time. Resources used for this slide: Image taken from http://www.mult‐sclerosis.org/synapse.gif on may 4th, 2008. Smilkstein, R. (2003) We’re Born to Learn: Using the Brain’s Natural Learning Process to Create Today’s Curriculum. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press, Inc. van den Noort, M., P. Bosch, & K. Hugdahl. (2006) Looking at Second Language Acquisition from a Functional‐ and Structural MRI Background. In Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, pp. 2293‐2298. Vancouver B.C.: The Cognitive Science Society Inc. 10

Smilkstein, 2003, 56

Andrew This slide presents a simple diagram of a dendrite that is growing and how it branches out. A good analogy for students to use to help them remember the function of dendrites is to compare it to a tree. The stronger and older it is, the larger it will be. But if it is deprived of resources (knowledge) the tree (dendrites) will die. Resources used for this slide Smilkstein, R. (2003) We’re Born to Learn: Using the Brain’s Natural Learning Process to Create Today’s Curriculum. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press, Inc.

Smilkstein, 2003, 79

Andrew This slide allows for students to see a second interpretation of dendrite growth and synapse. When dendrites begin to grow and eventually come into contact a synapse or link occurs and the two dendrites are connected, thereby allowing for a different flow of information. Resources used for this slide Smilkstein, R. (2003) We’re Born to Learn: Using the Brain’s Natural Learning Process to Create Today’s Curriculum. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press, Inc.

Critical Period

Age

Andrew The focus of this slide will to be to present plasticity and age, as age increases plasticity (the expansion of dendrites) decreases, there by making material more difficult to learn. The problem with this model is that there is no room for growth, only decrease (this will be addressed in the following slide). Resources used for this slide Image taken and modified from http://many.corante.com/archives/authors/Clay.php on May 4th, 2008.

Age

Andrew This new model proposes that plasticity is not the only important factor. With this model other learning (cultural knowledge, environmental knowledge, etc.) also plays a critical role, so even though the neurological plasticity is decreasing, there is still a strong capacity for learning based off of cultural and prior knowledge. Reference to Cummins research, presented in C. Collier’s TESOL 410/CCE 510 course. Resources used for this slide Image taken and modified from http://many.corante.com/archives/authors/Clay.php on May 4th, 2008.

“A major hypothesis is that, in bilinguals and polyglots, the different languages are represented and processed in distinct brain regions. Some indirect evidence for this hypothesis has been found in bilinguals and/or polyglots suffering from aphasia.” (van den Noort, 2006, 2293) “Neurosurgery as well, may lead to a selective impairment of one language in bilinguals.” (2006, 2293)

Andrew “It has been reported that L1 (AOA before about 6 years) and L2 (AOA before about 7 years) are represented differently in cortical areas (28), whereas other studies have reported that they have a common neural substrates during sentence comprehension tasks (29).” (Sakai, 2005, 817) What this statement and the information presented on the slide means is that even though a speaker can be proficient in an L2 acquired after the critical/sensitive period, it is imperative to realize that the L2 will be stored differently if it is acquired during or after this period. The polyglots suffering from aphasia are mentioned in various research, many times if someone has acquired an L2 after the critical/sensitive period and suffer aphasia, it will only affect one of the two languages, suggesting that the two languages are stored in different parts of the brain (see next slide). Resources used for this slide Sakai, K. L. (2005) Language Acquisition and Brain Development. In Science (310. 815), pp. 815‐819. Washington DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science. van den Noort,M., P. Bosch, & K. Hugdahl. (2006) Looking at Second Language Acquisition from a Functional‐ and Structural MRI Background. In Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, pp. 2293‐2298. Vancouver B.C.: The Cognitive Science Society Inc. 15

Early Bilingual 2006

Late Bilingual Schinckel,

Andrew This slide presents neurological evidence that age is a critical factor in determining how one learns a second language. As can be seen in the images, the early bilingual has a strong correlation of “common” area in both Wernicke's and Broca’s areas of the brain; where as in the late bilingual the information is more scattered and in Wernicke’s area is completely separate. This slide also demonstrates that if language is acquired during the sensitive/critical period it generally occupies the same area of the brain, while the languages acquired after this period occupy a different portion of the brain. Resources used for this slide Schinckel, P. (2006) Sensitive and advantageous periods in first language learning: What are the implications for very young Japanese learners of English? In The International Journal of Language, Society & Culture (16). Online Database: http://www.educ.utas.edu.au/users/tle/Journal/ARTICLES/2006/16‐4.html

Why do literate adults have an easier time learning to read in another language? Why do children acquire a second language faster than adults? What is the difference between a person who acquired two languages during the sensitive period vs. a person who acquired the second during the post-critical?

Andrew The three above questions will be used to create a small group discussion. 1.As we learned in class and from the slide that presents “a new model of plasticity and age” adults already have the ability to read in their L1 Æ this can be directly transferred to their L2. 2.Children acquire a second language faster than adults because they are still in the sensitive period, that is that their dendrites are still rapidly expanding. 3.A native bilingual will have his/her language in the same areas of the brain (shared space) while someone who learns a second language later in life will have their L2 stored in separate parts of the brain. Resources used for this slide None

` `

Maturational: biological Non-maturational: socio-cultural, psychological, environment Includes CPH

Marie The MCH is regarded by some as a subcategory of CPH but others (Lee 2006) see it as an alternative explanation that subsumes CPH. MCH consists of maturational constraints (a milder “critical period”) and non‐ maturational constraints (which account for the complexities of the individual). The maturational constraint has biological basis in the development of the brain (like CPH) but implies a gradual decline of language learning ability until the maturational period is complete after which few effects of the constraint are seen. It includes biological predispositions like Noam Chomsky’s UG. Non‐maturational constraints include socio‐cultural, psychological, and environmental factors which are constantly interacting with the individual’s current maturational state.

` ` ` ` ` `

Pronunciation and L1 interference Access to UG Learning mechanisms Motivation: instrumental and integrative Attitude: Krashen’s affective filter Aptitude

Marie Accent/pronunciation is in the biological domain and would therefore be affected by maturation. It is relatively uncontroversial that children are more likely to have higher attainment in L2 pronunciation. L1 interference refers to the influence of habitual L1 phonology on the adult learner’s L2 pronunciation (Bialystok & Hakuta 1999). The level of native‐like syntax one may achieve is a matter of much debate; it may or may not be affected by maturational factors. Cases like Genie and Chelsea suggest that a CP exists for syntax, but again others have presented cases where L2 syntax was attainable. Even early learners have variable success with syntax, and some adults achieve syntactic proficiency; perhaps access to UG is not completely lost. General cognition and learning abilities begin to decline with age (Singleton 2007, Hakuta, Bialystok & Wiley 2003). Lexical expansion can continue infinitely, indication that this ability is beyond maturation constraints. Around puberty, methods of learning change due to some combination of experiences or (in the Piagetan theory) progression to formal operative thinking and methods become more abstract/analytic, relying on explicit rather than implicit

Effects of Education

Marie Effects of Education The impact education/experience can have becomes clear in a study that correlates age, years of education, and level of proficiency of immigrant English learners (Bialystok & Hakuta 1999). Non‐maturational Factors Motivation‐ both instrumental and integrative motivation‐ has been noted as a key non‐maturational factor for successful adult LL; research shows a strong correlation between high motivation and ultimate attainment (Burgo 2006, Kormos & Csizer 2008). Attitude is also important as laid out by Krashen’s theory of an affective filter. Self‐ image, comfort level, perception of the L2 culture, and expectations of oneself and of society are present for children but far more consciously for adults (Burgo 2006, Singleton 2007). Aptitude is never to be entirely disregarded (Burgo 2006, Lee 2004). The learning environment‐ teacher, fellow students, and method of instruction‐ will influence effectiveness of learning.

Carmen

` ` ` ` `

Higher order language functions Low tolerance to ambiguity Interested in rules Some focus on form is beneficial Be careful with overanalysis and rote strategies Learning experiences: contextualized and meaningful Prior knowledge

Carmen Adults are capable of higher‐order language functions and learning strategies (mnemonic devices, litearcy skills and other resources) (Snow, 2002). “Only when conscious knowledge is called for, as in monitoring tasks that require grammatical analyses (Krashen , 1977, 1978), do older learners keep a long‐term advantage over younger learners” (in Twyford, 1988) . “Because of their conscious awareness of language and ability to formalize linguistic rules, older learners can outperform younger learners in the early stages of language acquisition, especially in production tasks (speaking and writing)” (Twyford, 1988) Implications: teachers can have high expectations from adult learners. These learners benefit from some grammatical explanations and deductive thinking. However, it is extremely important to consider the context and delivery of the explanation. It has to be meaningful and connected to the students’ prior knowledge. Ausubel (1964) warns us against overanalysis: “It is possible that the dominance of the left hemisphere contributes to the tendency to overanalyze and be too intellectually centered on the task of second language learning” (in Brown, 2000, p.62). For example, one of my EFL students in Mexico, Rosa, wanted to know the exact meaning and function of each word she was reading and got stressed (which inhibited her learning). Thus, instruction should pay attention to form, but have a main focus on meaning. In addition, adults have a good ability for rote learning. Nevertheless, it should be used most sparingly ( e.g. rote drills, pattern practice without context, rule recitation, etc.) since it is not meaningful. 22

` `

` ` ` `

Concrete thinking Don’t benefit from focus on form activities High tolerance to ambiguity Comprehensible input Meaningful contexts Prior knowledge and experiences

Carmen Young children have a concrete thinking process and their learning strategies are still developing. In consequence, they do not benefit from grammatical explanations and deductive thinking. Moreover, “It is a myth to contend that children are good rote learners, that they make good use of meaningless repetition and mimicking” (Brown, 2000, p.63).Ausubel confirms this idea, “…[he]noted that people of all ages have little need for rote, mechanistic learning that is not related to existing knowledge and experience” (Brown, 2000, p.63). In this way, the quality, variety and comprehensibility of exposure become essential: “Teachers might do well about to be as deliberate, but meaningful, in their communication with students as the parent is to the child…” (Brown, 2000, p. 73). On the other hand, children have a high tolerance to ambiguity ‐they are not concerned by contradictions. I have observed that children hardly ever ask questions about form. As for adults, learning experiences must be highly contextualized and meaningful (connected to the students’ reality and experiences).

` ` ` ` ` `

Adolescence: selfconsciousness and inhibitions Language Ego Error correction: respect and recast Value risk-taking Low affective filter: safety and comfort Strategies to feel in control of own learning Negative attitudes towards L2: crosscultural understanding and respect Peer pressure: tolerance

Carmen Especially in pre‐ adolescence and adolescence, students become increasingly self‐conscious and develop inhibitions due to the physical, psychological and social changes they are undergoing. It is not a good idea to have them expose themselves through potentially embarrassing activities (be singled out, certain kinds of songs and role‐plays). Teachers should not force them to participate and should also be careful with corrections. Using recasts is more respectful and effective correction strategy. If we fail to create a classroom atmosphere of safety and respect, defensive mechanism will be triggered :“The language ego clings to the security of the native language to protect the fragile ego of the young adult” (Brown, 200, p.65).Language ego is “the identity a person develops in reference to the language he or she speaks” (Brown, 2000, p. 64) Second language learners develop a second identity, which could prevent them to take risks because of the fear of making mistakes and being embarrassed. We need to explain to students that this trial‐error process is natural and we can help them to become aware of their progress and language acquisition development. For example, we could invite them to be active in the planning and application of learning and assessment strategies so that they feel in control of their own learning. Self‐assessment and valuing risk‐taking are good options. Adults are more likely to develop negative attitudes towards a second language (related to culture, race, classes, etc.) That is why we need develop an atmosphere of cross‐cultural understanding and value. Peer pressure: adults usually tolerate linguistic differences more and give each other positive feedback. In a study by Scarcella and Higa (1982) it was reported that “…the older learners were more adept at managing the conversation to obtain more comprehensible input: they signaled their understanding better; they were more successful in keeping the conversation going; and they changed the conversation topic more proficiently” (Twyford, 1988).

` ` ` ` ` ` `

Egocentric Willing to experiment Less aware of forms Inhibitions: 9 yearsold on Strong peer pressure Attitudes start at school age Class atmosphere: crosscultural understanding and value

Carmen Children are egocentric and not self‐conscious. Regarding language ego, “Younger children are less frightened because they are less aware of language forms, and the possibility of making mistakes in those forms‐mistakes that one really must make in an attempt to communicate spontaneously‐ does not concern the greatly” (Brown,, 2000, p.65). “…they may be more willing to experiment with unfamiliar sounds and sound sequences.” (Snow, 2002) Therefore, activities such as games, role‐plays, songs, etc. are very appropriate for them. However, children as young as 9 can start developing inhibitions. Before school age, it is less likely for children to develop negative attitudes towards a second language and its speakers (related to culture, race, classes, etc.). As they reach school age, they can start showing negative attitudes. Consequently, it is always essential to create an atmosphere of cross‐cultural understanding and value in the school. Peer pressure: “Children are harsher critics of one another’s actions and words and may thus provide a necessary and sufficient degree of mutual pressure to learn the second language” (Brown, 2000, p. 66). Scarcella and Higa (1982) stated that “Most language minority children will not feel comfortable asking for the kinds of clarifications necessary to get comprehensible input. This puts these children at a clear disadvantage when compared to older learners and learners from elaborated‐code backgrounds where explicitness and the search for it are valued” (Twyford, 1988). Therefore, teachers must perform comprehension checks often. 25

` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` `

High L1 interference Operate from solid L1 construction Bridge gaps, use L1 syntax Help to undestand difference Benefit from similarities Pronunciation: not nativelike Henry Kissinger effect MaintainL1 and L2 succesfully Well-developed communication strategies

mine.

mío.

isn’t mine.

Carmen “Adults, more cognitively secure, appear to operate from the solid foundation if the first language and thus manifest more interference” (Brown, 2000, p.68). We can expect adult learners to try to bridge gaps with 1st language’s syntax and vocabulary, and also to try to discover the rules of the 2nd language in comparison with their 1st one . For example, my EFL Mexican students sometimes say “No is mine” (Spanish: No es mío) when they haven’t internalized the use of “it” (which doesn´t exist in Spanish), to say “It isn’t mine”. As teachers we must understand this kind of production and help the students to see that this is a syntactic difference between L1 and L2. It is also vital to help them to benefit from the similarities. Pronunciation: “The acquisition of the communicative and functional purposes of language is, in most circumstances, far more important than a perfect native accent” (Brown, 2000, p.60).This can be illustrated by the “Henry Kissinger effect”: the former U.S. secretary of State had a strong German accent, but was remarkably eloquent. First language maintenance: “Adult second‐language learners almost never become monolingual in the process of learning a second language, as children often do. Thus, they master the greater cognitive and linguistic challenge of maintaining two languages, often at a very high level, with much greater success than do children” (Snow 2002).

` `

Transfer: creative construction Communication stategies: comprehension checks Prone to lose L1 proficiency Provide for first language maintenance.

Carmen There are different, and often contradictory views on the issue of L1 transfer. According to Dulay and Burt (1976, p. 72), interference in not a matter of concern for children: “Transfer of L1 syntactic patterns rarely occurs.” When acquiring L2, children use “creative construction”, just as they do when acquiring their first language (including the overgeneralizations and common mistakes). It is as if the young child were acquiring two first languages. More evidence on this assumption has been obtained in recent research and I can witness this by my experience interviewing Hispanic, kindergarten age English learners in Washington. Children demonstrate characteristics of the stages of first language acquisition and they might use Spanish words to fill a gap , but within English syntax. First language maintenance: “Child second‐language learners are somewhat more likely to achieve native‐like proficiency in the second language than adult learners, and massively more likely to lose proficiency in their first language in the process… if we decide to value bilingualism as an outcome for American children, we should be alert to the findings that suggest that young second‐language learners can easily lose their first languages. We should appreciate the value of educational programs that provide for first‐language maintenance while building second‐language competence.” (Snow, 2002).

“The second language teacher needs to be acutely aware of cultural thought patterns that may be as interfering as the linguistic patterns themselves” (Brown, 2000, p.72) “…meaningful contexts for language learning are necessary; second language learners ought not to become too preoccupied with form lest they lose sight of the function and purpose of language” (Brown, 2000, p.73).

Carmen First language maintenance: “Child second‐language learners are somewhat more likely to achieve native‐like proficiency in the second language than adult learners, and massively more likely to lose proficiency in their first language in the process… if we decide to value bilingualism as an outcome for American children, we should be alert to the findings that suggest that young second‐language learners can easily lose their first languages. We should appreciate the value of educational programs that provide for first‐language maintenance while building second‐language competence.” (Snow, 2002).

` `

Brown, D. (2000). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. Fourth Ed. NY: Longman Bialystok, E. & K. Hakuta (1999). Confounded age: linguistic and cognitive factors in age differences for second language acquisition. In D. Birdsong (Ed.), Second language acquisition and the critical period hypothesis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 161-181.

Birdsong, D. (1999). Second Language Acquisition and the Critical Period Hypothesis. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers: New Jersey. Bucuvalas, A. (2002).Looking Closely at Second Language Learning: An Interview with Shattuck Professor Catherine Snow. Harvard Graduate School of Education. Retrieved on May 10, 2008 from http://www.gse.harvard.edu/news/features/snow10012002.html Burgo, C. (2006). Maturational constraints in adult SLA. Language learning 1: 12-25.

Freeman, D.E. & Freeman, Y. S. (2004). Essential linguistics: what you need to know to teach reading, ESL, spelling, phonics, and grammar. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Hakuta, K. (2001). A critical period for second language acquisition? In D. B. Bailey, J. T. Bruer, F. J. Symons, & J. W. Lichtman (Eds.), Critical Thinking about critical periods (pp. 193-205). Baltimore: Paul Brookes. Hakuta, K., E. Bialystok, & E. Wiley (2003). Critical evidence: A test of the critical-period hypothesis for second language acquisition. Psychological Science 14: 31-38.

Komarova, N. L. & M. A. Nowak. (2001) Natural selection of the critical period for language acquisition. In Proceedings: Biological Sciences (267. 1472), pp. 1189-1196. London: The Royal Society Kormos, J. & K. Csizer (2008). Age-related differences in the motivation of learning EFL. Language Learning 58: 327-355.

Lee, Y. (2004). An explanation of age difference in second language acquisition. Korean journal of English language and linguistics 4: 475-497. McLaughlin, Barry. (1984). Second Language Acquisition in Childhood Volume 1. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers: New Jersey. Sakai, K. L. (2005) Language Acquisition and Brain Development. In Science (310. 815), pp. 815-819. Washington DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Schinckel, P. (2006) Sensitive and advantageous periods in first language learning: What are the implications for very young Japanese learners of English? In The International Journal of Language, Society & Culture (16). Online Database: http://www.educ.utas.edu.au/users/tle/Journal/ARTICLES/2006/16-4.html Singleton, D. (2007). The critical period hypothesis: Some problems. Interlinguistica 17: 48-56.

Smilkstein, R. (2003) We’re Born to Learn: Using the Brain’s Natural Learning Process to Create Today’s Curriculum. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press, Inc. Twyford, Charles W. (1987). Age-Related Factors in Second Language Acquisition. New Focus: the National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education. No. 2, winter. Retrieved on May 10, 2008 from http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/pubs/classics/focus/02bage.htm van den Noort,M., P. Bosch, & K. Hugdahl. (2006) Looking at Second Language Acquisition from a Functional- and Structural MRI Background. In Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, pp. 2293-2298. Vancouver B.C.: The Cognitive Science Society Inc.