why is the critical period hypothesis criticized

Critical Period In Brain Development and Childhood Learning

Charlotte Nickerson

Research Assistant at Harvard University

Undergraduate at Harvard University

Charlotte Nickerson is a student at Harvard University obsessed with the intersection of mental health, productivity, and design.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Saul Mcleod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul Mcleod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

On This Page:

Key Takeaways

• Critical period is an ethological term that refers to a fixed and crucial time during the early development of an organism when it can learn things that are essential to survival. These influences impact the development of processes such as hearing and vision, social bonding, and language learning.
• The term is most often experienced in the study of imprinting, where it is thought that young birds could only develop an attachment to the mother during a fixed time soon after hatching.
• Neurologically, critical periods are marked by high levels of plasticity in the brain before neural connections become more solidified and stable. In particular, critical periods tend to end when synapses that inhibit the neurotransmitter GABA mature.
• In contrast to critical periods, sensitive periods, otherwise known as “weak critical periods,” happen when an organism is more sensitive than usual to outside factors influencing behavior, but this influence is not necessarily restricted to the sensitive period.
• Scholars have debated the extent to which older organisms can develop certain skills, such as natively-accented foreign languages, after the critical period.

The critical period is a biologically determined stage of development where an organism is optimally ready to acquire some pattern of behavior that is part of typical development. This period, by definition, will not recur at a later stage.

If an organism does not receive exposure to the appropriate stimulus needed to learn a skill during a critical period, it may be difficult or even impossible for that organism to develop certain functions associated with that skill later in life.

This happens because a range of functional and structural elements prevent passive experiences from eliciting significant changes in the brain (Cisneros-Franco et al., 2020).

The first strong proponent of the theory of critical periods was Charles Stockhard (1921), a biologist who attempted to experiment with the effects of various chemicals on the development of fish embryos, though he gave credit to Dareste for originating the idea 30 years earlier (Scott, 1962).

Stockhard’s experiments showed that applying almost any chemical to fish embryos at a certain stage of development would result in one-eyed fish.

These experiments established that the most rapidly growing tissues in an embryo are the most sensitive to any change in conditions, leading to effects later in development (Scott, 1962).

Meanwhile, psychologist Sigmund Freud attempted to explain the origins of neurosis in human patients as the result of early experiences, implying that infants are particularly sensitive to influences at certain points in their lives.

Lorenz (1935) later emphasized the importance of critical periods in the formation of primary social bonds (otherwise known as imprinting) in birds, remarking that this psychological imprinting was similar to critical periods in the development of the embryo.

Soon thereafter, McGraw (1946) pointed out the existence of critical periods for the optimal learning of motor skills in human infants (Scott, 1962).

Example: Infant-Parent Attachment

The concept of critical or sensitive periods can also be found in the domain of social development, for example, in the formation of the infant-parent attachment relationship (Salkind, 2005).

Attachment describes the strong emotional ties between the infant and caregiver, a reciprocal relationship developing over the first year of the child’s life and particularly during the second six months of the first year.

During this attachment period , the infant’s social behavior becomes increasingly focused on the principal caregivers (Salkind, 2005).

The 20th-century English psychiatrist John Bowlby formulated and presented a comprehensive theory of attachment influenced by evolutionary theory.

Bowlby argued that the infant-parent attachment relationship develops because it is important to the survival of the infant and that the period from six to twenty-four months of age is a critical period of attachment.

This coincides with an infant’s increasing tendency to approach familiar caregivers and to be wary of unfamiliar adults. After this critical period, it is still possible for a first attachment relationship to develop, albeit with greater difficulty (Salkind, 2005).

This has brought into question, in a similar vein to language development, whether there is actually a critical development period for infant-caregiver attachment.

Sources debating this issue typically include cases of infants who did not experience consistent caregiving due to being raised in institutions prior to adoption (Salkind, 2005).

Early research into the critical period of attachment, published in the 1940s, reports consistently that children raised in orphanages subsequently showed unusual and maladaptive patterns of social behavior, difficulty in forming close relationships, and being indiscriminately friendly toward unfamiliar adults (Salkind, 2005).

Later, research from the 1990s indicated that adoptees were actually still able to form attachment relationships after the first year of life and also made developmental progress following adoption.

Nonetheless, these children had an overall increased risk of insecure or maladaptive attachment relationships with their adoptive parents. This evidence supports the notion of a sensitive period, but not a critical period, in the development of first attachment relationships (Salkind, 2005).

Mechanisms for Critical Periods

Both genetics and sensory experiences from outside the body shape the brain as it develops (Knudsen, 2004). However, the developmental stage that an organism is in significantly impacts how much the brain can change based on these experiences.

In scientific terms, the brain’s plasticity changes over the course of a lifespan. The brain is very plastic in the early stages of life before many key connections take root, but less so later.

This is why researchers have shown that early experience is crucial for the development of, say, language and musical abilities, and these skills are more challenging to take up in adulthood (Skoe and Kraus, 2013; White et al., 2013; Hartshorne et al., 2018).

As brains mature, the connections in them become more fixed. The brain’s transitions from a more plastic to a more fixed state advantageously allow it to retain new and complex processes, such as perceptual, motor, and cognitive functions (Piaget, 1962).

Children’s gestures, for example, pride and predict how they will acquire oral language skills (Colonnesi et al., 2010), which in turn are important for developing executive functions (Marcovitch and Zelazo, 2009).

However, this formation of stable connections in the brain can limit how the brain’s neural circuitry can be revised in the future. For example, if a young organism has abnormal sensory experiences during the critical period – such as auditory or visual deprivation – the brain may not wire itself in a way that processes future sensory inputs properly (Gallagher et al., 2020).

One illustration of this is the timing of cochlear implants – a prosthesis that restores hearing in some deaf people. Children who receive cochlear implants before two years of age are more likely to benefit from them than those who are implanted later in life (Kral and Eggermont, 2007; Gallagher et al., 2020).

Similarly, the visual deprivation caused by cataracts in infants can cause similar consequences. When cataracts are removed during early infancy, individuals can develop relatively normal vision; however, when the cataracts are not removed until adulthood, this results in substantially poorer vision (Martins Rosa et al., 2013).

After the critical period closes, abnormal sensory experiences have a less drastic effect on the brain and lead to – barring direct damage to the central nervous system – reversible changes (Gallagher et al., 2020). Much of what scientists know about critical periods derives from animal studies , as these allow researchers greater control over the variables that they are testing.

This research has found that different sensory systems, such as vision, auditory processing, and spatial hearing, have different critical periods (Gallagher et al., 2020).

The brain regulates when critical periods open and close by regulating how much the brain’s synapses take up neurotransmitters , which are chemical substances that affect the transmission of electrical signals between neurons.

In particular, over time, synapses decrease their uptake of gamma-aminobutyric acid, better known as GABA. At the beginning of the critical period, outside sources become more effective at influencing changes and growth in the brain.

Meanwhile, as the inhibitory circuits of the brain mature, the mature brain becomes less sensitive to sensory experiences (Gallagher et al., 2020).

Critical Periods vs Sensitive Periods

Critical periods are similar to sensitive periods, and scholars have, at times, used them interchangeably. However, they describe distinct but overlapping developmental processes.

A sensitive period is a developmental stage where sensory experiences have a greater impact on behavioral and brain development than usual; however, this influence is not exclusive to this time period (Knudsen, 2004; Gallagher, 2020). These sensitive periods are important for skills such as learning a language or instrument.

In contrast, A critical period is a special type of sensitive period – a window where sensory experience is necessary to shape the neural circuits involved in basic sensory processing, and when this window opens and closes is well-defined (Gallagher, 2020).

Researchers also refer to sensitive periods as weak critical periods. Some examples of strong critical periods include the development of vision and hearing, while weak critical periods include phenome tuning – how children learn how to organize sounds in a language, grammar processing, vocabulary acquisition, musical training, and sports training (Gallagher et al., 2020).

Critical Period Hypothesis

One of the most notable applications of the concept of a critical period is in linguistics. Scholars usually trace the origins of the debate around age in language acquisition to Penfield and Robert’s (2014) book Speech and Brain Mechanisms.

In the 1950s and 1960s, Penfield was a staunch advocate of early immersion education (Kroll and De Groot, 2009). Nonetheless, it was Lenneberg, in his book Biological Foundations of Language, who coined the term critical period (1967) in describing the language period.

Lennenberg (1967) described a critical period as a period of automatic acquisition from mere exposure” that “seems to disappear after this age.” Scovel (1969) later summarized and narrowed Penfield’s and Lenneberg’s view on the critical period hypothesis into three main claims:

• Adult native speakers can identify non-natives by their accents immediately and accurately.
• The loss of brain plasticity at about the age of puberty accounts for the emergence of foreign accents./li>
• The critical period hypothesis only holds for speech (whether or not someone has a native accent) and does not affect other areas of linguistic competence.

Linguists have since attempted to find evidence for whether or not scientific evidence actually supports the critical period hypothesis, if there is a critical period for acquiring accentless speech, for “morphosyntactic” competence, and if these are true, how age-related differences can be explained on the neurological level (Scovel, 2000).

The critical period hypothesis applies to both first and second-language learning. Until recently, research around the critical period’s role in first language acquisition revolved around findings about so-called “feral” children who had failed to acquire language at an older age after having been deprived of normal input during the critical period.

However, these case studies did not account for the extent to which social deprivation, and possibly food deprivation or sensory deprivation, may have confounded with language input deprivation (Kroll and De Groot, 2009).

More recently, researchers have focused more systematically on deaf children born to hearing parents who are therefore deprived of language input until at least elementary school.

These studies have found the effects of lack of language input without extreme social deprivation: the older the age of exposure to sign language is, the worse its ultimate attainment (Emmorey, Bellugi, Friederici, and Horn, 1995; Kroll and De Groot, 2009).

However, Kroll and De Groot argue that the critical period hypothesis does not apply to the rate of acquisition of language. Adults and adolescents can learn languages at the same rate or even faster than children in their initial stage of acquisition (Slavoff and Johnson, 1995).

However, adults tend to have a more limited ultimate attainment of language ability (Kroll and De Groot, 2009).

There has been a long lineage of empirical findings around the age of acquisition. The most fundamental of this research comes from a series of studies since the late 1970s documenting a negative correlation between age of acquisition and ultimate language mastery (Kroll and De Grott, 2009).

Nonetheless, different periods correspond to sensitivity to different aspects of language. For example, shortly after birth, infants can perceive and discriminate speech sounds from any language, including ones they have not been exposed to (Eimas et al., 1971; Gallagher et al., 2020).

Around six months of age, exposure to the primary language in the infant’s environment guides phonetic representations of language and, subsequently, the neural representations of speech sounds of the native language while weakening those of unused sounds (McClelland et al., 1999; Gallagher et al., 2020).

Vocabulary learning experiences rapid growth at about 18 months of age (Kuhl, 2010).

Critical Evaluation

More than any other area of applied linguistics, the critical period hypothesis has impacted how teachers teach languages. Consequently, researchers have critiqued how important the critical period is to language learning.

For example, several studies in early language acquisition research showed that children were not necessarily superior to older learners in acquiring a second language, even in the area of pronunciation (Olson and Samuels, 1973; Snow and Hoefnagel-Hohle, 1978; Scovel, 2000).

In fact, the majority of researchers at the time appeared to be skeptical about the existence of a critical period, with some explicitly denying its existence.

Counter to one of the primary tenets of Scovel’s (1969) critical period hypothesis, there have been several cases of people who have acquired a second language in adulthood speaking with native accents.

For example, Moyer’s study of highly proficient English-speaking learners of German suggested that at least one of the participants was judged to have native-like pronunciation in his second language (1999), and several participants in Bongaerts (1999) study of highly proficient Dutch speakers of French spoke with accents judged to be native (Scovel, 2000).

Bongaerts, T. (1999). Ultimate attainment in L2 pronunciation: The case of very advanced late L2 learners. Second language acquisition and the critical period hypothesis, 133-159.

Cisneros-Franco, J. M., Voss, P., Thomas, M. E., & de Villers-Sidani, E. (2020). Critical periods of brain development. In Handbook of Clinical Neurolog y (Vol. 173, pp. 75-88). Elsevier.

Colonnesi, C., Stams, G. J. J., Koster, I., & Noom, M. J. (2010). The relation between pointing and language development: A meta-analysis. Developmental Review, 30 (4), 352-366.

Eimas, P. D., Siqueland, E. R., Jusczyk, P., & Vigorito, J. (1971). Speech perception in infants. Science, 171 (3968), 303-306.

Emmorey, K., Bellugi, U., Friederici, A., & Horn, P. (1995). Effects of age of acquisition on grammatical sensitivity: Evidence from on-line and off-line tasks. Applied Psycholinguistics, 16 (1), 1-23.

Knudsen, E. I. (2004). Sensitive periods in the development of the brain and behavior. Journal of cognitive neuroscience, 16 (8), 1412-1425.

Hartshorne, J. K., Tenenbaum, J. B., & Pinker, S. (2018). A critical period for second language acquisition: Evidence from 2/3 million English speakers. Cognition, 177 , 263-277.

Kral, A., & Eggermont, J. J. (2007). What’s to lose and what’s to learn: development under auditory deprivation, cochlear implants and limits of cortical plasticity. Brain Research Reviews, 56(1), 259-269.

Kroll, J. F., & De Groot, A. M. (Eds.). (2009). Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches . Oxford University Press.

Kuhl, P. K. (2010). Brain mechanisms in early language acquisition. Neuron, 67 (5), 713-727.

Lenneberg, E. H. (1967). The biological foundations of language. Hospital Practice, 2( 12), 59-67.

Lorenz, K. (1935). Der kumpan in der umwelt des vogels. Journal für Ornithologie, 83 (2), 137-213.

Marcovitch, S., & Zelazo, P. D. (2009). A hierarchical competing systems model of the emergence and early development of executive function. Developmental science, 12 (1), 1-18.

McClelland, J. L., Thomas, A. G., McCandliss, B. D., & Fiez, J. A. (1999). Understanding failures of learning: Hebbian learning, competition for representational space, and some preliminary experimental data. Progress in brain research, 121, 75-80.

McGraw, M. B. (1946). Maturation of behavior. In Manual of child psychology. (pp. 332-369). John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Moyer, A. (1999). Ultimate attainment in L2 phonology: The critical factors of age, motivation, and instruction. Studies in second language acquisition, 21 (1), 81-108.

Gallagher, A., Bulteau, C., Cohen, D., & Michaud, J. L. (2019). Neurocognitive Development: Normative Development. Elsevier.

Olson, L. L., & Jay Samuels, S. (1973). The relationship between age and accuracy of foreign language pronunciation. The Journal of Educational Research, 66 (6), 263-268.

Penfield, W., & Roberts, L. (2014). Speech and brain mechanisms. Princeton University Press.

Piaget, J. (1962). The stages of the intellectual development of the child. Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic, 26 (3), 120.

Rosa, A. M., Silva, M. F., Ferreira, S., Murta, J., & Castelo-Branco, M. (2013). Plasticity in the human visual cortex: an ophthalmology-based perspective. BioMed research international, 2013.

Salkind, N. J. (Ed.). (2005). Encyclopedia of human development . Sage Publications.

Scott, J. P. (1962). Critical periods in behavioral development. Science, 138 (3544), 949-958.

Scovel, T. (1969). Foreign accents, language acquisition, and cerebral dominance 1. Language learning, 19 (3‐4), 245-253.

Scovel, T. (2000). A critical review of the critical period research. Annual review of applied linguistics, 20 , 213-223.

Skoe, E., & Kraus, N. (2013). Musical training heightens auditory brainstem function during sensitive periods in development. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 622.

Slavoff, G. R., & Johnson, J. S. (1995). The effects of age on the rate of learning a second language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17 (1), 1-16.

Snow, C. E., & Hoefnagel-Höhle, M. (1978). The critical period for language acquisition: Evidence from second language learning. Child development, 1114-1128.

Stockard, C. R. (1921). Developmental rate and structural expression: an experimental study of twins,‘double monsters’ and single deformities, and the interaction among embryonic organs during their origin and development. American Journal of Anatomy, 28 (2), 115-277.

White, E. J., Hutka, S. A., Williams, L. J., & Moreno, S. (2013). Learning, neural plasticity and sensitive periods: implications for language acquisition, music training and transfer across the lifespan. Frontiers in systems neuroscience, 7, 90.

Further Information

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Best Family Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2023 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

Critical Period in Brain Development: Definition, Importance

Toketemu has been multimedia storyteller for the last four years. Her expertise focuses primarily on mental wellness and women’s health topics. 

Catherine Falls Commercial / Getty Images

• When Does the Critical Period Begin and End?
• The Critical Period Hypothesis—What It States
• What Happens to the Brain in the Critical Period?
• What Kind of Events Impact the Brain During the Critical Period?
• How Do Adverse Events Impact the Brain?
• What's the Difference Between a Critical Period and a Sensitive Period?
• What Happens to the Brain When the Critical Period Ends?

The critical period in brain development is an immensely significant and specific time frame during which the brain is especially receptive to environmental stimuli and undergoes a series of rapid changes. 

These changes have lifelong effects as essential neural connections and pathways are established, playing a vital role in cognitive, emotional, and social development. 

This article will explore the timeline, impacting events, and subsequent consequences of the critical period on brain development. It also explores the distinction between critical periods and sensitive periods and what happens to the brain once the critical period ends.

When Does the Critical Period Begin and End? 

The starting point of the critical period is at conception. The brain starts to form and develop from the moment you are conceived. During pregnancy, a baby's brain is already beginning to shape itself for the world outside. The brain is gearing up and getting ready to absorb a massive amount of information.

The Early Years of a Child's Life

Once the baby is born, the brain kicks into high gear. The early years of a child's life, from birth to around the age of five, are generally considered the core of the critical period. The brain is incredibly absorbent during these years, taking in information rapidly. Everything from language to motor skills to social cues is being learned and processed extensively.

Different aspects of learning and development have different critical periods. For instance, the critical period for language acquisition extends into early adolescence. This means that while the brain is still very good at learning languages during early childhood, it continues to be relatively efficient at it until the teenage years.

The brain is incredibly absorbent during these years, taking in information rapidly. Everything from language to motor skills to social cues is being learned and processed extensively.

Vision Develops During This Period

On the other hand, for certain sensory abilities like vision, the critical period might end much earlier. This means that the brain is most receptive to developing visual abilities in the first few years of life, and after that, it becomes significantly harder to change or improve these abilities.

The Critical Period Hypothesis—What It States 

The brain has a certain time window when it's exceptionally good at learning new things, especially languages. This window of time is what is referred to as the "critical period."

Younger People Learn Languages Faster Than Older People

Eric Lenneberg, a neuropsychologist, introduced the Critical Period Hypothesis. He was very interested in how people learn languages . Through his observations and research, Lenneberg noticed that younger people were much more adept at learning languages than older people. This observation led him to the idea that there is a specific period during which the brain is highly efficient and capable of absorbing languages.

As You Age, It Becomes More Difficult to Absorb New Information

If the critical period is a wide open window in the early years of life, allowing the brain to take in an abundance of information quickly and efficiently, as time progresses, this window begins to close gradually. As it closes, the brain becomes less capable of easily absorbing languages.

This doesn't mean that learning becomes impossible as you age; it merely indicates that the ease and efficiency with which the brain learns start to decline.

What Happens to the Brain in the Critical Period? 

During the critical period, the brain experiences explosive growth. Let's take a look at some of the changes that happen in the brain during the critical period.

Neurons Form Connections

In the early stages, neurons in the brain start to form connections. These connections are called synapses.

Synapses are bridges that help different parts of the brain communicate with each other. In the critical period, the brain is building these bridges at an incredible pace.

Neuroplasticity Strengthens Brain Connections

As a baby interacts with the world, certain connections strengthen while others weaken. For instance, if a baby hears a lot of music, the parts of the brain associated with sounds and music will become stronger. This process of strengthening certain connections is known as brain plasticity because the brain molds itself like plastic.

Attachment to Primary Caregivers

An essential aspect of the critical period is the development of attachment to caregivers. During the early months and years, babies and toddlers form strong bonds with the people caring for them .

These attachments are critical for emotional development. When a caregiver responds to a baby's needs with warmth and care, the baby learns to form secure attachments . This lays the foundation for healthy relationships later in life.

What Happens When Children Are Not Given Attention?

What if a child is not given the attention and care they need during the critical period? This is a significant concern. Without proper attention and stimulation, the brain doesn't develop as effectively. The bridges or connections that should be built might not form properly. This can lead to various issues, including difficulty forming relationships, emotional problems, and learning difficulties.

When a child is given proper attention, stimulation, and care during the critical period, their brain thrives. The connections form rapidly and robustly. This sets the stage for better learning, emotional regulation, and relationship-building throughout life.

What Kind of Events Impact the Brain During the Critical Period? 

When a child is exposed to a rich, stimulating environment where they can play, explore, and learn, it tremendously impacts the brain. Engaging in interactive learning, being read to, and having supportive relationships with caregivers can significantly contribute to a well-developed brain.

Events such as abuse, neglect, head trauma , or extreme stress—collectively known as adverse childhood experiences (ACEs)—can be detrimental to brain development. These adverse events can impede the formation of neural connections and lead to behavioral, emotional, and cognitive difficulties later in life. "Unfortunately, disruptions to normal brain development due to environmental influences such as poverty, neglect, or exposure to toxins can cause lasting damage. This is why it is so important for children to receive adequate nutrition, stimulation, and parental care during these first few years of life; without it, they may suffer developmental delays and other issues that could potentially be avoided with proper attention,"  Harold Hong, MD , a board-certified psychiatrist says.

How Do Adverse Events Impact the Brain? 

When a child is neglected or abused, stress can impact how their brain develops. The parts of the brain involved in emotions and handling stress might not develop properly. This can make it hard for the person to manage their emotions later in life.

The hippocampus, involved in learning and memory, and the amygdala, which plays a role in emotion processing, are especially vulnerable. 

Similarly, if a child does not have enough food to eat or a safe place to live, the chronic stress of these conditions can impact brain development. The brain might focus on survival instead of other important areas of development, like learning and building relationships.

Even accidents that cause head injuries can impact the brain during the critical period. If a child experiences head trauma, it can affect the brain's development depending on the injury's severity and location.

What's the Difference Between a Critical Period and a Sensitive Period?

It is imperative to distinguish between critical periods and sensitive periods.

• Critical periods are specific windows of time during development when the brain is exceptionally receptive to certain types of learning and experiences. Once this period is over, acquiring those skills or attributes becomes significantly more challenging.
• Sensitive periods are phases in which the brain is more responsive to certain experiences. It's easier to learn or be influenced by specific experiences during sensitive periods, but unlike critical periods, missing this timeframe doesn't make it impossible to acquire those skills or traits later.

For example, while there is a critical period for acquiring native-like pronunciation and grammar, there is also a sensitive period for language learning. Children are more adept at learning new languages when they are young, but even if someone misses this window, they can still learn languages later in life.

One way to visualize the difference is to think of critical periods as a tightly defined window of time with a clear beginning and end, during which certain development must occur. In contrast, sensitive periods are more like a gradual slope, where learning at the beginning is optimal, but the ability doesn't disappear entirely over time.

What Happens to the Brain When the Critical Period Ends? 

It's essential to recognize that the end of the critical period does not mean the end of learning or brain development. Instead, it signifies a shift in how the brain learns and adapts. 

During the critical period, the brain is highly plastic, meaning it can change and form new connections rapidly. As this period ends, the brain doesn't lose this plasticity entirely, but the rate at which it can make new connections slows down. 

According to Hong, although some of these connections can still be altered by experiences later in life, such as learning a new language or practicing a skill, it is much harder to make significant changes after the critical period has ended. This highlights just how important it is for parents to provide proper care and nurture during those first few years.

The Brain Becomes More Specialized Via Adult Plasticity

The brain also becomes more specialized in the skills and information it has acquired as this period ends. During the critical period, the brain forms numerous connections, and as it ends, it starts to use these connections more efficiently for specialized tasks.

Even though the critical period ends, the brain still possesses a degree of plasticity and continues to learn throughout life. This is called adult plasticity.

Adult plasticity is not as robust during the critical period, but it allows for the continuous adaptation and learning necessary for us to navigate the ever-changing demands of life.

The conventional view is that critical periods close relatively tightly. However, research has started to challenge this rigid view. It's more accurate to say that the doors of critical periods close but do not necessarily lock.

While the brain's plasticity decreases after these periods, learning and adaptation can still take place, albeit with more effort and over a longer time. This phenomenon of 'metaplasticity'—the brain's ability to change its plasticity levels—remains an exciting area of ongoing research,  Dr. Ryan Sultan , a neuroscientist, child psychiatrist, and professor of psychiatry at Columbia University, says. 

What This Means For You

The critical period represents an invaluable window during which the foundations for cognitive, emotional, and social abilities are established. The environment, experiences, and attachments formed during this period have far-reaching consequences on a person's life.  Understanding the nuances of the critical period is essential for educators, parents, and policymakers to create nurturing environments that support healthy brain development. Providing support and early interventions for children exposed to adverse experiences is vital for ensuring their potential is not hindered by the circumstances of their early life.

Siahaan F. The critical period hypothesis of sla eric lenneberg’s . Journal of Applied Linguistics . 2022;2(1):40-45.

Nelson CA, Gabard-Durnam LJ. Early adversity and critical periods: neurodevelopmental consequences of violating the expectable environment. Trends in Neurosciences. 2020;43(3):133-143.

Colombo J, Gustafson KM, Carlson SE. Critical and sensitive periods in development and nutrition. Ann Nutr Metab . 2019;75(Suppl. 1):34-42.

Patton MH, Blundon JA, Zakharenko SS. Rejuvenation of plasticity in the brain: opening the critical period. Current Opinion in Neurobiology . 2019;54:83-89.

By Toketemu Ohwovoriole Toketemu has been multimedia storyteller for the last four years. Her expertise focuses primarily on mental wellness and women’s health topics.

2009 Articles

The Critical Period Hypothesis: Support, Challenge, and Reconceptualization

Schouten, Andy

Given the general failure experienced by adults when attempting to learn a second or foreign language, many have hypothesized that a critical period exists for the domain of language learning. Supporters of the Critical Period Hypothesis (CPH) contend that language learning, which takes place outside of this critical period (roughly defined as ending sometime around puberty), will inevitably be marked by non-native like features. In opposition to this position, several researches have postulated that, although rare, nativelike proficiency in a second language is in fact possible for adult learners. Still others, in light of the robust debate and research 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 paper, a review of literature describing the support, challenges, and reconceptualizations of the CPH is provided.

• Second language acquisition--Research
• Applied linguistics--Research
• Critical periods (Biology)
• English language--Study and teaching--Foreign speakers

Also Published In

More about this work.

• DOI Copy DOI to clipboard

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List

The Critical Period Hypothesis in Second Language Acquisition: A Statistical Critique and a Reanalysis

Jan vanhove.

Department of Multilingualism, University of Fribourg, Fribourg, Switzerland

Analyzed the data: JV. Wrote the paper: JV.

Associated Data

In second language acquisition research, the critical period hypothesis ( cph ) holds that the function between learners' age and their susceptibility to second language input is non-linear. This paper revisits the indistinctness found in the literature with regard to this hypothesis's scope and predictions. Even when its scope is clearly delineated and its predictions are spelt out, however, empirical studies–with few exceptions–use analytical (statistical) tools that are irrelevant with respect to the predictions made. This paper discusses statistical fallacies common in cph research and illustrates an alternative analytical method (piecewise regression) by means of a reanalysis of two datasets from a 2010 paper purporting to have found cross-linguistic evidence in favour of the cph . This reanalysis reveals that the specific age patterns predicted by the cph are not cross-linguistically robust. Applying the principle of parsimony, it is concluded that age patterns in second language acquisition are not governed by a critical period. To conclude, this paper highlights the role of confirmation bias in the scientific enterprise and appeals to second language acquisition researchers to reanalyse their old datasets using the methods discussed in this paper. The data and R commands that were used for the reanalysis are provided as supplementary materials.

Introduction

In the long term and in immersion contexts, second-language (L2) learners starting acquisition early in life – and staying exposed to input and thus learning over several years or decades – undisputedly tend to outperform later learners. Apart from being misinterpreted as an argument in favour of early foreign language instruction, which takes place in wholly different circumstances, this general age effect is also sometimes taken as evidence for a so-called ‘critical period’ ( cp ) for second-language acquisition ( sla ). Derived from biology, the cp concept was famously introduced into the field of language acquisition by Penfield and Roberts in 1959 [1] and was refined by Lenneberg eight years later [2] . Lenneberg argued that language acquisition needed to take place between age two and puberty – a period which he believed to coincide with the lateralisation process of the brain. (More recent neurological research suggests that different time frames exist for the lateralisation process of different language functions. Most, however, close before puberty [3] .) However, Lenneberg mostly drew on findings pertaining to first language development in deaf children, feral children or children with serious cognitive impairments in order to back up his claims. For him, the critical period concept was concerned with the implicit “automatic acquisition” [2, p. 176] in immersion contexts and does not preclude the possibility of learning a foreign language after puberty, albeit with much conscious effort and typically less success.

sla research adopted the critical period hypothesis ( cph ) and applied it to second and foreign language learning, resulting in a host of studies. In its most general version, the cph for sla states that the ‘susceptibility’ or ‘sensitivity’ to language input varies as a function of age, with adult L2 learners being less susceptible to input than child L2 learners. Importantly, the age–susceptibility function is hypothesised to be non-linear. Moving beyond this general version, we find that the cph is conceptualised in a multitude of ways [4] . This state of affairs requires scholars to make explicit their theoretical stance and assumptions [5] , but has the obvious downside that critical findings risk being mitigated as posing a problem to only one aspect of one particular conceptualisation of the cph , whereas other conceptualisations remain unscathed. This overall vagueness concerns two areas in particular, viz. the delineation of the cph 's scope and the formulation of testable predictions. Delineating the scope and formulating falsifiable predictions are, needless to say, fundamental stages in the scientific evaluation of any hypothesis or theory, but the lack of scholarly consensus on these points seems to be particularly pronounced in the case of the cph . This article therefore first presents a brief overview of differing views on these two stages. Then, once the scope of their cph version has been duly identified and empirical data have been collected using solid methods, it is essential that researchers analyse the data patterns soundly in order to assess the predictions made and that they draw justifiable conclusions from the results. As I will argue in great detail, however, the statistical analysis of data patterns as well as their interpretation in cph research – and this includes both critical and supportive studies and overviews – leaves a great deal to be desired. Reanalysing data from a recent cph -supportive study, I illustrate some common statistical fallacies in cph research and demonstrate how one particular cph prediction can be evaluated.

Delineating the scope of the critical period hypothesis

First, the age span for a putative critical period for language acquisition has been delimited in different ways in the literature [4] . Lenneberg's critical period stretched from two years of age to puberty (which he posits at about 14 years of age) [2] , whereas other scholars have drawn the cutoff point at 12, 15, 16 or 18 years of age [6] . Unlike Lenneberg, most researchers today do not define a starting age for the critical period for language learning. Some, however, consider the possibility of the critical period (or a critical period for a specific language area, e.g. phonology) ending much earlier than puberty (e.g. age 9 years [1] , or as early as 12 months in the case of phonology [7] ).

Second, some vagueness remains as to the setting that is relevant to the cph . Does the critical period constrain implicit learning processes only, i.e. only the untutored language acquisition in immersion contexts or does it also apply to (at least partly) instructed learning? Most researchers agree on the former [8] , but much research has included subjects who have had at least some instruction in the L2.

Third, there is no consensus on what the scope of the cp is as far as the areas of language that are concerned. Most researchers agree that a cp is most likely to constrain the acquisition of pronunciation and grammar and, consequently, these are the areas primarily looked into in studies on the cph [9] . Some researchers have also tried to define distinguishable cp s for the different language areas of phonetics, morphology and syntax and even for lexis (see [10] for an overview).

Fourth and last, research into the cph has focused on ‘ultimate attainment’ ( ua ) or the ‘final’ state of L2 proficiency rather than on the rate of learning. From research into the rate of acquisition (e.g. [11] – [13] ), it has become clear that the cph cannot hold for the rate variable. In fact, it has been observed that adult learners proceed faster than child learners at the beginning stages of L2 acquisition. Though theoretical reasons for excluding the rate can be posited (the initial faster rate of learning in adults may be the result of more conscious cognitive strategies rather than to less conscious implicit learning, for instance), rate of learning might from a different perspective also be considered an indicator of ‘susceptibility’ or ‘sensitivity’ to language input. Nevertheless, contemporary sla scholars generally seem to concur that ua and not rate of learning is the dependent variable of primary interest in cph research. These and further scope delineation problems relevant to cph research are discussed in more detail by, among others, Birdsong [9] , DeKeyser and Larson-Hall [14] , Long [10] and Muñoz and Singleton [6] .

Formulating testable hypotheses

Once the relevant cph 's scope has satisfactorily been identified, clear and testable predictions need to be drawn from it. At this stage, the lack of consensus on what the consequences or the actual observable outcome of a cp would have to look like becomes evident. As touched upon earlier, cph research is interested in the end state or ‘ultimate attainment’ ( ua ) in L2 acquisition because this “determines the upper limits of L2 attainment” [9, p. 10]. The range of possible ultimate attainment states thus helps researchers to explore the potential maximum outcome of L2 proficiency before and after the putative critical period.

One strong prediction made by some cph exponents holds that post- cp learners cannot reach native-like L2 competences. Identifying a single native-like post- cp L2 learner would then suffice to falsify all cph s making this prediction. Assessing this prediction is difficult, however, since it is not clear what exactly constitutes sufficient nativelikeness, as illustrated by the discussion on the actual nativelikeness of highly accomplished L2 speakers [15] , [16] . Indeed, there exists a real danger that, in a quest to vindicate the cph , scholars set the bar for L2 learners to match monolinguals increasingly higher – up to Swiftian extremes. Furthermore, the usefulness of comparing the linguistic performance in mono- and bilinguals has been called into question [6] , [17] , [18] . Put simply, the linguistic repertoires of mono- and bilinguals differ by definition and differences in the behavioural outcome will necessarily be found, if only one digs deep enough.

A second strong prediction made by cph proponents is that the function linking age of acquisition and ultimate attainment will not be linear throughout the whole lifespan. Before discussing how this function would have to look like in order for it to constitute cph -consistent evidence, I point out that the ultimate attainment variable can essentially be considered a cumulative measure dependent on the actual variable of interest in cph research, i.e. susceptibility to language input, as well as on such other factors like duration and intensity of learning (within and outside a putative cp ) and possibly a number of other influencing factors. To elaborate, the behavioural outcome, i.e. ultimate attainment, can be assumed to be integrative to the susceptibility function, as Newport [19] correctly points out. Other things being equal, ultimate attainment will therefore decrease as susceptibility decreases. However, decreasing ultimate attainment levels in and by themselves represent no compelling evidence in favour of a cph . The form of the integrative curve must therefore be predicted clearly from the susceptibility function. Additionally, the age of acquisition–ultimate attainment function can take just about any form when other things are not equal, e.g. duration of learning (Does learning last up until time of testing or only for a more or less constant number of years or is it dependent on age itself?) or intensity of learning (Do learners always learn at their maximum susceptibility level or does this intensity vary as a function of age, duration, present attainment and motivation?). The integral of the susceptibility function could therefore be of virtually unlimited complexity and its parameters could be adjusted to fit any age of acquisition–ultimate attainment pattern. It seems therefore astonishing that the distinction between level of sensitivity to language input and level of ultimate attainment is rarely made in the literature. Implicitly or explicitly [20] , the two are more or less equated and the same mathematical functions are expected to describe the two variables if observed across a range of starting ages of acquisition.

But even when the susceptibility and ultimate attainment variables are equated, there remains controversy as to what function linking age of onset of acquisition and ultimate attainment would actually constitute evidence for a critical period. Most scholars agree that not any kind of age effect constitutes such evidence. More specifically, the age of acquisition–ultimate attainment function would need to be different before and after the end of the cp [9] . According to Birdsong [9] , three basic possible patterns proposed in the literature meet this condition. These patterns are presented in Figure 1 . The first pattern describes a steep decline of the age of onset of acquisition ( aoa )–ultimate attainment ( ua ) function up to the end of the cp and a practically non-existent age effect thereafter. Pattern 2 is an “unconventional, although often implicitly invoked” [9, p. 17] notion of the cp function which contains a period of peak attainment (or performance at ceiling), i.e. performance does not vary as a function of age, which is often referred to as a ‘window of opportunity’. This time span is followed by an unbounded decline in ua depending on aoa . Pattern 3 includes characteristics of patterns 1 and 2. At the beginning of the aoa range, performance is at ceiling. The next segment is a downward slope in the age function which ends when performance reaches its floor. Birdsong points out that all of these patterns have been reported in the literature. On closer inspection, however, he concludes that the most convincing function describing these age effects is a simple linear one. Hakuta et al. [21] sketch further theoretically possible predictions of the cph in which the mean performance drops drastically and/or the slope of the aoa – ua proficiency function changes at a certain point.

The graphs are based on based on Figure 2 in [9] .

Although several patterns have been proposed in the literature, it bears pointing out that the most common explicit prediction corresponds to Birdsong's first pattern, as exemplified by the following crystal-clear statement by DeKeyser, one of the foremost cph proponents:

[A] strong negative correlation between age of acquisition and ultimate attainment throughout the lifespan (or even from birth through middle age), the only age effect documented in many earlier studies, is not evidence for a critical period…[T]he critical period concept implies a break in the AoA–proficiency function, i.e., an age (somewhat variable from individual to individual, of course, and therefore an age range in the aggregate) after which the decline of success rate in one or more areas of language is much less pronounced and/or clearly due to different reasons. [22, p. 445].

DeKeyser and before him among others Johnson and Newport [23] thus conceptualise only one possible pattern which would speak in favour of a critical period: a clear negative age effect before the end of the critical period and a much weaker (if any) negative correlation between age and ultimate attainment after it. This ‘flattened slope’ prediction has the virtue of being much more tangible than the ‘potential nativelikeness’ prediction: Testing it does not necessarily require comparing the L2-learners to a native control group and thus effectively comparing apples and oranges. Rather, L2-learners with different aoa s can be compared amongst themselves without the need to categorise them by means of a native-speaker yardstick, the validity of which is inevitably going to be controversial [15] . In what follows, I will concern myself solely with the ‘flattened slope’ prediction, arguing that, despite its clarity of formulation, cph research has generally used analytical methods that are irrelevant for the purposes of actually testing it.

Inferring non-linearities in critical period research: An overview

Group mean or proportion comparisons

[T]he main differences can be found between the native group and all other groups – including the earliest learner group – and between the adolescence group and all other groups. However, neither the difference between the two childhood groups nor the one between the two adulthood groups reached significance, which indicates that the major changes in eventual perceived nativelikeness of L2 learners can be associated with adolescence. [15, p. 270].

Similar group comparisons aimed at investigating the effect of aoa on ua have been carried out by both cph advocates and sceptics (among whom Bialystok and Miller [25, pp. 136–139], Birdsong and Molis [26, p. 240], Flege [27, pp. 120–121], Flege et al. [28, pp. 85–86], Johnson [29, p. 229], Johnson and Newport [23, p. 78], McDonald [30, pp. 408–410] and Patowski [31, pp. 456–458]). To be clear, not all of these authors drew direct conclusions about the aoa – ua function on the basis of these groups comparisons, but their group comparisons have been cited as indicative of a cph -consistent non-continuous age effect, as exemplified by the following quote by DeKeyser [22] :

Where group comparisons are made, younger learners always do significantly better than the older learners. The behavioral evidence, then, suggests a non-continuous age effect with a “bend” in the AoA–proficiency function somewhere between ages 12 and 16. [22, p. 448].

The first problem with group comparisons like these and drawing inferences on the basis thereof is that they require that a continuous variable, aoa , be split up into discrete bins. More often than not, the boundaries between these bins are drawn in an arbitrary fashion, but what is more troublesome is the loss of information and statistical power that such discretisation entails (see [32] for the extreme case of dichotomisation). If we want to find out more about the relationship between aoa and ua , why throw away most of the aoa information and effectively reduce the ua data to group means and the variance in those groups?

Comparison of correlation coefficients

Correlation-based inferences about slope discontinuities have similarly explicitly been made by cph advocates and skeptics alike, e.g. Bialystok and Miller [25, pp. 136 and 140], DeKeyser and colleagues [22] , [44] and Flege et al. [45, pp. 166 and 169]. Others did not explicitly infer the presence or absence of slope differences from the subset correlations they computed (among others Birdsong and Molis [26] , DeKeyser [8] , Flege et al. [28] and Johnson [29] ), but their studies nevertheless featured in overviews discussing discontinuities [14] , [22] . Indeed, the most recent overview draws a strong conclusion about the validity of the cph 's ‘flattened slope’ prediction on the basis of these subset correlations:

In those studies where the two groups are described separately, the correlation is much higher for the younger than for the older group, except in Birdsong and Molis (2001) [ =  [26] , JV], where there was a ceiling effect for the younger group. This global picture from more than a dozen studies provides support for the non-continuity of the decline in the AoA–proficiency function, which all researchers agree is a hallmark of a critical period phenomenon. [22, p. 448].

In Johnson and Newport's specific case [23] , their correlation-based inference that ua levels off after puberty happened to be largely correct: the gjt scores are more or less randomly distributed around a near-horizontal trend line [26] . Ultimately, however, it rests on the fallacy of confusing correlation coefficients with slopes, which seriously calls into question conclusions such as DeKeyser's (cf. the quote above).

It can then straightforwardly be deduced that, other things equal, the aoa – ua correlation in the older group decreases as the ua variance in the older group increases relative to the ua variance in the younger group (Eq. 3).

Lower correlation coefficients in older aoa groups may therefore be largely due to differences in ua variance, which have been reported in several studies [23] , [26] , [28] , [29] (see [46] for additional references). Greater variability in ua with increasing age is likely due to factors other than age proper [47] , such as the concomitant greater variability in exposure to literacy, degree of education, motivation and opportunity for language use, and by itself represents evidence neither in favour of nor against the cph .

Regression approaches

Having demonstrated that neither group mean or proportion comparisons nor correlation coefficient comparisons can directly address the ‘flattened slope’ prediction, I now turn to the studies in which regression models were computed with aoa as a predictor variable and ua as the outcome variable. Once again, this category of studies is not mutually exclusive with the two categories discussed above.

In a large-scale study using self-reports and approximate aoa s derived from a sample of the 1990 U.S. Census, Stevens found that the probability with which immigrants from various countries stated that they spoke English ‘very well’ decreased curvilinearly as a function of aoa [48] . She noted that this development is similar to the pattern found by Johnson and Newport [23] but that it contains no indication of an “abruptly defined ‘critical’ or sensitive period in L2 learning” [48, p. 569]. However, she modelled the self-ratings using an ordinal logistic regression model in which the aoa variable was logarithmically transformed. Technically, this is perfectly fine, but one should be careful not to read too much into the non-linear curves found. In logistic models, the outcome variable itself is modelled linearly as a function of the predictor variables and is expressed in log-odds. In order to compute the corresponding probabilities, these log-odds are transformed using the logistic function. Consequently, even if the model is specified linearly, the predicted probabilities will not lie on a perfectly straight line when plotted as a function of any one continuous predictor variable. Similarly, when the predictor variable is first logarithmically transformed and then used to linearly predict an outcome variable, the function linking the predicted outcome variables and the untransformed predictor variable is necessarily non-linear. Thus, non-linearities follow naturally from Stevens's model specifications. Moreover, cph -consistent discontinuities in the aoa – ua function cannot be found using her model specifications as they did not contain any parameters allowing for this.

Using data similar to Stevens's, Bialystok and Hakuta found that the link between the self-rated English competences of Chinese- and Spanish-speaking immigrants and their aoa could be described by a straight line [49] . In contrast to Stevens, Bialystok and Hakuta used a regression-based method allowing for changes in the function's slope, viz. locally weighted scatterplot smoothing ( lowess ). Informally, lowess is a non-parametrical method that relies on an algorithm that fits the dependent variable for small parts of the range of the independent variable whilst guaranteeing that the overall curve does not contain sudden jumps (for technical details, see [50] ). Hakuta et al. used an even larger sample from the same 1990 U.S. Census data on Chinese- and Spanish-speaking immigrants (2.3 million observations) [21] . Fitting lowess curves, no discontinuities in the aoa – ua slope could be detected. Moreover, the authors found that piecewise linear regression models, i.e. regression models containing a parameter that allows a sudden drop in the curve or a change of its slope, did not provide a better fit to the data than did an ordinary regression model without such a parameter.

To sum up, I have argued at length that regression approaches are superior to group mean and correlation coefficient comparisons for the purposes of testing the ‘flattened slope’ prediction. Acknowledging the reservations vis-à-vis self-estimated ua s, we still find that while the relationship between aoa and ua is not necessarily perfectly linear in the studies discussed, the data do not lend unequivocal support to this prediction. In the following section, I will reanalyse data from a recent empirical paper on the cph by DeKeyser et al. [44] . The first goal of this reanalysis is to further illustrate some of the statistical fallacies encountered in cph studies. Second, by making the computer code available I hope to demonstrate how the relevant regression models, viz. piecewise regression models, can be fitted and how the aoa representing the optimal breakpoint can be identified. Lastly, the findings of this reanalysis will contribute to our understanding of how aoa affects ua as measured using a gjt .

Summary of DeKeyser et al. (2010)

I chose to reanalyse a recent empirical paper on the cph by DeKeyser et al. [44] (henceforth DK et al.). This paper lends itself well to a reanalysis since it exhibits two highly commendable qualities: the authors spell out their hypotheses lucidly and provide detailed numerical and graphical data descriptions. Moreover, the paper's lead author is very clear on what constitutes a necessary condition for accepting the cph : a non-linearity in the age of onset of acquisition ( aoa )–ultimate attainment ( ua ) function, with ua declining less strongly as a function of aoa in older, post- cp arrivals compared to younger arrivals [14] , [22] . Lastly, it claims to have found cross-linguistic evidence from two parallel studies backing the cph and should therefore be an unsuspected source to cph proponents.

The authors set out to test the following hypotheses:

• Hypothesis 1: For both the L2 English and the L2 Hebrew group, the slope of the age of arrival–ultimate attainment function will not be linear throughout the lifespan, but will instead show a marked flattening between adolescence and adulthood.
• Hypothesis 2: The relationship between aptitude and ultimate attainment will differ markedly for the young and older arrivals, with significance only for the latter. (DK et al., p. 417)

Both hypotheses were purportedly confirmed, which in the authors' view provides evidence in favour of cph . The problem with this conclusion, however, is that it is based on a comparison of correlation coefficients. As I have argued above, correlation coefficients are not to be confused with regression coefficients and cannot be used to directly address research hypotheses concerning slopes, such as Hypothesis 1. In what follows, I will reanalyse the relationship between DK et al.'s aoa and gjt data in order to address Hypothesis 1. Additionally, I will lay bare a problem with the way in which Hypothesis 2 was addressed. The extracted data and the computer code used for the reanalysis are provided as supplementary materials, allowing anyone interested to scrutinise and easily reproduce my whole analysis and carry out their own computations (see ‘supporting information’).

Data extraction

In order to verify whether we did in fact extract the data points to a satisfactory degree of accuracy, I computed summary statistics for the extracted aoa and gjt data and checked these against the descriptive statistics provided by DK et al. (pp. 421 and 427). These summary statistics for the extracted data are presented in Table 1 . In addition, I computed the correlation coefficients for the aoa – gjt relationship for the whole aoa range and for aoa -defined subgroups and checked these coefficients against those reported by DK et al. (pp. 423 and 428). The correlation coefficients computed using the extracted data are presented in Table 2 . Both checks strongly suggest the extracted data to be virtually identical to the original data, and Dr DeKeyser confirmed this to be the case in response to an earlier draft of the present paper (personal communication, 6 May 2013).

Results and Discussion

Modelling the link between age of onset of acquisition and ultimate attainment.

I first replotted the aoa and gjt data we extracted from DK et al.'s scatterplots and added non-parametric scatterplot smoothers in order to investigate whether any changes in slope in the aoa – gjt function could be revealed, as per Hypothesis 1. Figures 3 and ​ and4 4 show this not to be the case. Indeed, simple linear regression models that model gjt as a function of aoa provide decent fits for both the North America and the Israel data, explaining 65% and 63% of the variance in gjt scores, respectively. The parameters of these models are given in Table 3 .

The trend line is a non-parametric scatterplot smoother. The scatterplot itself is a near-perfect replication of DK et al.'s Fig. 1.

The trend line is a non-parametric scatterplot smoother. The scatterplot itself is a near-perfect replication of DK et al.'s Fig. 5.

To ensure that both segments are joined at the breakpoint, the predictor variable is first centred at the breakpoint value, i.e. the breakpoint value is subtracted from the original predictor variable values. For a blow-by-blow account of how such models can be fitted in r , I refer to an example analysis by Baayen [55, pp. 214–222].

Solid: regression with breakpoint at aoa 18 (dashed lines represent its 95% confidence interval); dot-dash: regression without breakpoint.

Solid: regression with breakpoint at aoa 18 (dashed lines represent its 95% confidence interval); dot-dash (hardly visible due to near-complete overlap): regression without breakpoint.

Solid: regression with breakpoint at aoa 16 (dashed lines represent its 95% confidence interval); dot-dash: regression without breakpoint.

Solid: regression with breakpoint at aoa 6 (dashed lines represent its 95% confidence interval); dot-dash (hardly visible due to near-complete overlap): regression without breakpoint.

In sum, a regression model that allows for changes in the slope of the the aoa – gjt function to account for putative critical period effects provides a somewhat better fit to the North American data than does an everyday simple regression model. The improvement in model fit is marginal, however, and including a breakpoint does not result in any detectable improvement of model fit to the Israel data whatsoever. Breakpoint models therefore fail to provide solid cross-linguistic support in favour of critical period effects: across both data sets, gjt can satisfactorily be modelled as a linear function of aoa .

On partialling out ‘age at testing’

As I have argued above, correlation coefficients cannot be used to test hypotheses about slopes. When the correct procedure is carried out on DK et al.'s data, no cross-linguistically robust evidence for changes in the aoa – gjt function was found. In addition to comparing the zero-order correlations between aoa and gjt , however, DK et al. computed partial correlations in which the variance in aoa associated with the participants' age at testing ( aat ; a potentially confounding variable) was filtered out. They found that these partial correlations between aoa and gjt , which are given in Table 9 , differed between age groups in that they are stronger for younger than for older participants. This, DK et al. argue, constitutes additional evidence in favour of the cph . At this point, I can no longer provide my own analysis of DK et al.'s data seeing as the pertinent data points were not plotted. Nevertheless, the detailed descriptions by DK et al. strongly suggest that the use of these partial correlations is highly problematic. Most importantly, and to reiterate, correlations (whether zero-order or partial ones) are actually of no use when testing hypotheses concerning slopes. Still, one may wonder why the partial correlations differ across age groups. My surmise is that these differences are at least partly the by-product of an imbalance in the sampling procedure.

The upshot of this brief discussion is that the partial correlation differences reported by DK et al. are at least partly the result of an imbalance in the sampling procedure: aoa and aat were simply less intimately tied for the young arrivals in the North America study than for the older arrivals with L2 English or for all of the L2 Hebrew participants. In an ideal world, we would like to fix aat or ascertain that it at most only weakly correlates with aoa . This, however, would result in a strong correlation between aoa and another potential confound variable, length of residence in the L2 environment, bringing us back to square one. Allowing for only moderate correlations between aoa and aat might improve our predicament somewhat, but even in that case, we should tread lightly when making inferences on the basis of statistical control procedures [61] .

On estimating the role of aptitude

Having shown that Hypothesis 1 could not be confirmed, I now turn to Hypothesis 2, which predicts a differential role of aptitude for ua in sla in different aoa groups. More specifically, it states that the correlation between aptitude and gjt performance will be significant only for older arrivals. The correlation coefficients of the relationship between aptitude and gjt are presented in Table 10 .

The problem with both the wording of Hypothesis 2 and the way in which it is addressed is the following: it is assumed that a variable has a reliably different effect in different groups when the effect reaches significance in one group but not in the other. This logic is fairly widespread within several scientific disciplines (see e.g. [62] for a discussion). Nonetheless, it is demonstrably fallacious [63] . Here we will illustrate the fallacy for the specific case of comparing two correlation coefficients.

Apart from not being replicated in the North America study, does this difference actually show anything? I contend that it does not: what is of interest are not so much the correlation coefficients, but rather the interactions between aoa and aptitude in models predicting gjt . These interactions could be investigated by fitting a multiple regression model in which the postulated cp breakpoint governs the slope of both aoa and aptitude. If such a model provided a substantially better fit to the data than a model without a breakpoint for the aptitude slope and if the aptitude slope changes in the expected direction (i.e. a steeper slope for post- cp than for younger arrivals) for different L1–L2 pairings, only then would this particular prediction of the cph be borne out.

Using data extracted from a paper reporting on two recent studies that purport to provide evidence in favour of the cph and that, according to its authors, represent a major improvement over earlier studies (DK et al., p. 417), it was found that neither of its two hypotheses were actually confirmed when using the proper statistical tools. As a matter of fact, the gjt scores continue to decline at essentially the same rate even beyond the end of the putative critical period. According to the paper's lead author, such a finding represents a serious problem to his conceptualisation of the cph [14] ). Moreover, although modelling a breakpoint representing the end of a cp at aoa 16 may improve the statistical model slightly in study on learners of English in North America, the study on learners of Hebrew in Israel fails to confirm this finding. In fact, even if we were to accept the optimal breakpoint computed for the Israel study, it lies at aoa 6 and is associated with a different geometrical pattern.

Diverging age trends in parallel studies with participants with different L2s have similarly been reported by Birdsong and Molis [26] and are at odds with an L2-independent cph . One parsimonious explanation of such conflicting age trends may be that the overall, cross-linguistic age trend is in fact linear, but that fluctuations in the data (due to factors unaccounted for or randomness) may sometimes give rise to a ‘stretched L’-shaped pattern ( Figure 1, left panel ) and sometimes to a ‘stretched 7’-shaped pattern ( Figure 1 , middle panel; see also [66] for a similar comment).

Importantly, the criticism that DeKeyser and Larsson-Hall levy against two studies reporting findings similar to the present [48] , [49] , viz. that the data consisted of self-ratings of questionable validity [14] , does not apply to the present data set. In addition, DK et al. did not exclude any outliers from their analyses, so I assume that DeKeyser and Larsson-Hall's criticism [14] of Birdsong and Molis's study [26] , i.e. that the findings were due to the influence of outliers, is not applicable to the present data either. For good measure, however, I refitted the regression models with and without breakpoints after excluding one potentially problematic data point per model. The following data points had absolute standardised residuals larger than 2.5 in the original models without breakpoints as well as in those with breakpoints: the participant with aoa 17 and a gjt score of 125 in the North America study and the participant with aoa 12 and a gjt score of 117 in the Israel study. The resultant models were virtually identical to the original models (see Script S1 ). Furthermore, the aoa variable was sufficiently fine-grained and the aoa – gjt curve was not ‘presmoothed’ by the prior aggregation of gjt across parts of the aoa range (see [51] for such a criticism of another study). Lastly, seven of the nine “problems with supposed counter-evidence” to the cph discussed by Long [5] do not apply either, viz. (1) “[c]onfusion of rate and ultimate attainment”, (2) “[i]nappropriate choice of subjects”, (3) “[m]easurement of AO”, (4) “[l]eading instructions to raters”, (6) “[u]se of markedly non-native samples making near-native samples more likely to sound native to raters”, (7) “[u]nreliable or invalid measures”, and (8) “[i]nappropriate L1–L2 pairings”. Problem No. 5 (“Assessments based on limited samples and/or “language-like” behavior”) may be apropos given that only gjt data were used, leaving open the theoretical possibility that other measures might have yielded a different outcome. Finally, problem No. 9 (“Faulty interpretation of statistical patterns”) is, of course, precisely what I have turned the spotlights on.

Conclusions

The critical period hypothesis remains a hotly contested issue in the psycholinguistics of second-language acquisition. Discussions about the impact of empirical findings on the tenability of the cph generally revolve around the reliability of the data gathered (e.g. [5] , [14] , [22] , [52] , [67] , [68] ) and such methodological critiques are of course highly desirable. Furthermore, the debate often centres on the question of exactly what version of the cph is being vindicated or debunked. These versions differ mainly in terms of its scope, specifically with regard to the relevant age span, setting and language area, and the testable predictions they make. But even when the cph 's scope is clearly demarcated and its main prediction is spelt out lucidly, the issue remains to what extent the empirical findings can actually be marshalled in support of the relevant cph version. As I have shown in this paper, empirical data have often been taken to support cph versions predicting that the relationship between age of acquisition and ultimate attainment is not strictly linear, even though the statistical tools most commonly used (notably group mean and correlation coefficient comparisons) were, crudely put, irrelevant to this prediction. Methods that are arguably valid, e.g. piecewise regression and scatterplot smoothing, have been used in some studies [21] , [26] , [49] , but these studies have been criticised on other grounds. To my knowledge, such methods have never been used by scholars who explicitly subscribe to the cph .

I suspect that what may be going on is a form of ‘confirmation bias’ [69] , a cognitive bias at play in diverse branches of human knowledge seeking: Findings judged to be consistent with one's own hypothesis are hardly questioned, whereas findings inconsistent with one's own hypothesis are scrutinised much more strongly and criticised on all sorts of points [70] – [73] . My reanalysis of DK et al.'s recent paper may be a case in point. cph exponents used correlation coefficients to address their prediction about the slope of a function, as had been done in a host of earlier studies. Finding a result that squared with their expectations, they did not question the technical validity of their results, or at least they did not report this. (In fact, my reanalysis is actually a case in point in two respects: for an earlier draft of this paper, I had computed the optimal position of the breakpoints incorrectly, resulting in an insignificant improvement of model fit for the North American data rather than a borderline significant one. Finding a result that squared with my expectations, I did not question the technical validity of my results – until this error was kindly pointed out to me by Martijn Wieling (University of Tübingen).) That said, I am keen to point out that the statistical analyses in this particular paper, though suboptimal, are, as far as I could gather, reported correctly, i.e. the confirmation bias does not seem to have resulted in the blatant misreportings found elsewhere (see [74] for empirical evidence and discussion). An additional point to these authors' credit is that, apart from explicitly identifying their cph version's scope and making crystal-clear predictions, they present data descriptions that actually permit quantitative reassessments and have a history of doing so (e.g. the appendix in [8] ). This leads me to believe that they analysed their data all in good conscience and to hope that they, too, will conclude that their own data do not, in fact, support their hypothesis.

I end this paper on an upbeat note. Even though I have argued that the analytical tools employed in cph research generally leave much to be desired, the original data are, so I hope, still available. This provides researchers, cph supporters and sceptics alike, with an exciting opportunity to reanalyse their data sets using the tools outlined in the present paper and publish their findings at minimal cost of time and resources (for instance, as a comment to this paper). I would therefore encourage scholars to engage their old data sets and to communicate their analyses openly, e.g. by voluntarily publishing their data and computer code alongside their articles or comments. Ideally, cph supporters and sceptics would join forces to agree on a protocol for a high-powered study in order to provide a truly convincing answer to a core issue in sla .

Supporting Information

aoa and gjt data extracted from DeKeyser et al.'s North America study.

aoa and gjt data extracted from DeKeyser et al.'s Israel study.

Script with annotated R code used for the reanalysis. All add-on packages used can be installed from within R.

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Irmtraud Kaiser (University of Fribourg) for helping me to get an overview of the literature on the critical period hypothesis in second language acquisition. Thanks are also due to Martijn Wieling (currently University of Tübingen) for pointing out an error in the R code accompanying an earlier draft of this paper.

Funding Statement

No current external funding sources for this study.

Multilingual Pedagogy and World Englishes

Linguistic Variety, Global Society

Critical Period Hypothesis (CPH)

Tom Scovel writes, “The CPH [critical period hypothesis] is conceivably the most contentious issue in SLA because there is disagreement over its exact age span; people disagree strenuously over which facets of language are affected; there are competing explanations for its existence; and, to top it off, many people don’t believe it exists at all” (113). Proposed by Wilder Penfield and Lamar Roberts in 1959, the Critical Period Hypothesis (CPH) argues that there is a specific period of time in which people can learn a language without traces of the L1 (a so-called “foreign” accent or even L1 syntactical features) manifesting in L2 production (Scovel 48). If a learner’s goal is to sound “native,” there may be age-related limitations or “maturational constraints” as Kenneth Hyltenstam and Niclas Abrahamsson call them, on how “native” they can sound. Reducing the impression left by the L1 is certainly possible after puberty, but eliminating that impression entirely may not be possible.

Kenji Hakuta et al. explains that the relationship between age and L1 interference in L2 production is really not up for debate:

“The diminished average achievement of older learners is supported by personal anecdote and documented by empirical evidence….What is controversial, though, is whether this pattern meets the conditions for concluding that a critical period constrains learning in a way predicted by the theory” (31).

Some learners manage to overcome the “constraints” that Scovel believes are “probably accounted for by neurological factors that are genetically specified in our species” (114), but these learners are exceptional rather than the rule. It may be biology; it may be due to something else. The debate will continue, but evidence seems to indicate that the older learners become, the more difficult complete acquisition can be.

“David Birdsong, Looking Inside and Beyond the Critical Period Hypothesis.”  YouTube,  uploaded by IWL Channel, 09 May 2016, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Bo0C4dj7Mw.

Application

Instructors should consider taking the CPH into account when assessing their students’ oral communication in the target language. When “maturational constraints” are a potential concern, it seems more fair for instructors to weight comprehension more heavily than nativeness. A thorough understanding of the CPH can also help instructors to counteract adult learners’ “self-handicapping” by helping the learners understand that, in spite of constraints due to aging, they are still capable of acquiring many–if not most–aspects of the target language.

Bibliography

Hakuta, Kenji, et al. “Critical Evidence: A Test of the Critical-Period Hypothesis for Second-Language Acquisition.”  Psychological Science , vol. 14, no. 1, 2003, pp. 31–38.  JSTOR , www.jstor.org/stable/40063748.

Hyltenstam, Kenneth, and Niclas Abrahamsson. “Comments on Stefka H. Marinova-Todd, D. Bradford Marshall, and Catherine E. Snow’s ‘Three Misconceptions about Age and L2 Learning’: Age and L2 Learning: The Hazards of Matching Practical ‘Implications’ with Theoretical ‘Facts.’”  TESOL Quarterly , vol. 35, no. 1, 2001, pp. 151–170.  JSTOR , www.jstor.org/stable/3587863.

Nemer, Randa. “Critical Period Hypothesis.”  Prezi,  04 Dec. 2013, https://prezi.com/zzuch40ibrlq/critical-period-hypothesis-sla/#.

Scovel, Tom.  Learning New Languages . Heinle & Heinle, 2001.

Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science pp 1588–1590 Cite as

Critical Period

• Yan Wang 3 &
• Jing Guo 3  
• Reference work entry
• First Online: 01 January 2021

228 Accesses

Crucial time ; Sensitive period

A maturational stage during the lifespan of an organism in which the organism’s nervous system is especially sensitive to certain environmental stimuli. The organism is more sensitive to environmental stimulation during a critical period than at other times during its life.

Introduction

The phenomenon of critical period was first described by William James ( 1899 ) as “the transitoriness of instincts.” The term “critical period” was proposed by the Austrian ecologist based on his observations that newly hatched poultries, such as chicks and geese, would follow the object, usually their mother, if exposed to within a certain short time after birth.

According to Lorenz, if the young animal was not exposed to the particular stimulus during the “critical period” to learn a given skill or trait, it would become extremely struggling to develop particular behavioral pattern in the later life.

A vast of existing literature has identified the...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution .

Belsky, J., Schlomer, G. L., & Ellis, B. J. (2012). Beyond cumulative risk: Distinguishing harshness and unpredictability as determinants of parenting and early life history strategy. Developmental Psychology, 48 , 662–673.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Bowlby, J. (1951). Maternal care and mental health . Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 3, 1–63.

Google Scholar  

Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss. Vol. 1. Attachment . New York: Basic Books.

Doom, J. R., Vanzomeren-Dohm, A. A., & Simpson, J. A. (2016). Early unpredictability predicts increased adolescent externalizing behaviors and substance use: A life history perspective. Development and Psychopathology, 28 , 1505–1516.

Ellis, B. J. (2004). Timing of pubertal maturation in girls: An integrated life history approach. Psychological Bulletin, 130 , 920–958.

Ellis, B. J., & Del Giudice, M. (2014). Beyond allostatic load: Rethinking the role of stress in regulating human development. Developmental and Psychopathology, 26 , 1–20.

Article   Google Scholar  

Friedmann, N., & Rusou, D. (2015). Critical period for first language: The crucial role of language input during the first year of life. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 35 , 27–34.

Granena, G., & Long, M. H. (2014). Age of onset, length of residence, language aptitude and ultimate L2 attainment in three linguistic domains. Second Language Research, 29 (3), 311–343.

Hubel, D. H., & Wiesel, T. N. (1962). Receptive fields, binocular interaction and functional architecture in the cat’s visual cortex. The Journal of Physiology, 160 (45), 106–154.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Hurford, J. R. (1991). The evolution of the critical period for language acquisition. Cognition, 40 (3), 159–201.

James, W. (1899). Talks to teachers on psychology: And to students on some of life’s ideals . Dover Publications 2001. ISBN 0-486-41964-9.

Simpson, J. A., Griskevicius, V., Kuo, A. I.-C., Sung, S., & Collins, W. A. (2012). Evolution, stress and sensitive periods: The influence of unpredictability in early versus late childhood on sex and risky behavior. Developmental Psychology, 48 (3), 674–686.

Susman, E. J. (2006). Psychobiology of persistent antisocial behavior: Stress, early vulnerabilities and the attenuation hypothesis. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 30 , 376–389.

Vanhove, J. (2013). Critical evidence: A test of the critical-period hypothesis for second-language acquisition. Psychological Science, 14 (1), 31–38.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Psychology, Fudan University, Shanghai, China

Yan Wang & Jing Guo

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yan Wang .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Department of Psychology, Oakland University, Rochester, MI, USA

Todd K Shackelford

Viviana A Weekes-Shackelford

Section Editor information

University of Nicosia, Nicosia, Cyprus

Menelaos Apostolou

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Wang, Y., Guo, J. (2021). Critical Period. In: Shackelford, T.K., Weekes-Shackelford, V.A. (eds) Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19650-3_1060

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19650-3_1060

Published : 22 April 2021

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-319-19649-7

Online ISBN : 978-3-319-19650-3

eBook Packages : Behavioral Science and Psychology Reference Module Humanities and Social Sciences Reference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

Share this entry

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

The Critical Period Hypothesis in Second Language Acquisition: A Statistical Critique and a Reanalysis

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliation Department of Multilingualism, University of Fribourg, Fribourg, Switzerland

• Jan Vanhove

• Published: July 25, 2013
• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0069172
• Reader Comments

17 Jul 2014: The PLOS ONE Staff (2014) Correction: The Critical Period Hypothesis in Second Language Acquisition: A Statistical Critique and a Reanalysis. PLOS ONE 9(7): e102922. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0102922 View correction

In second language acquisition research, the critical period hypothesis ( cph ) holds that the function between learners' age and their susceptibility to second language input is non-linear. This paper revisits the indistinctness found in the literature with regard to this hypothesis's scope and predictions. Even when its scope is clearly delineated and its predictions are spelt out, however, empirical studies–with few exceptions–use analytical (statistical) tools that are irrelevant with respect to the predictions made. This paper discusses statistical fallacies common in cph research and illustrates an alternative analytical method (piecewise regression) by means of a reanalysis of two datasets from a 2010 paper purporting to have found cross-linguistic evidence in favour of the cph . This reanalysis reveals that the specific age patterns predicted by the cph are not cross-linguistically robust. Applying the principle of parsimony, it is concluded that age patterns in second language acquisition are not governed by a critical period. To conclude, this paper highlights the role of confirmation bias in the scientific enterprise and appeals to second language acquisition researchers to reanalyse their old datasets using the methods discussed in this paper. The data and R commands that were used for the reanalysis are provided as supplementary materials.

Citation: Vanhove J (2013) The Critical Period Hypothesis in Second Language Acquisition: A Statistical Critique and a Reanalysis. PLoS ONE 8(7): e69172. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0069172

Editor: Stephanie Ann White, UCLA, United States of America

Received: May 7, 2013; Accepted: June 7, 2013; Published: July 25, 2013

Copyright: © 2013 Jan Vanhove. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Funding: No current external funding sources for this study.

Competing interests: The author has declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

In the long term and in immersion contexts, second-language (L2) learners starting acquisition early in life – and staying exposed to input and thus learning over several years or decades – undisputedly tend to outperform later learners. Apart from being misinterpreted as an argument in favour of early foreign language instruction, which takes place in wholly different circumstances, this general age effect is also sometimes taken as evidence for a so-called ‘critical period’ ( cp ) for second-language acquisition ( sla ). Derived from biology, the cp concept was famously introduced into the field of language acquisition by Penfield and Roberts in 1959 [1] and was refined by Lenneberg eight years later [2] . Lenneberg argued that language acquisition needed to take place between age two and puberty – a period which he believed to coincide with the lateralisation process of the brain. (More recent neurological research suggests that different time frames exist for the lateralisation process of different language functions. Most, however, close before puberty [3] .) However, Lenneberg mostly drew on findings pertaining to first language development in deaf children, feral children or children with serious cognitive impairments in order to back up his claims. For him, the critical period concept was concerned with the implicit “automatic acquisition” [2, p. 176] in immersion contexts and does not preclude the possibility of learning a foreign language after puberty, albeit with much conscious effort and typically less success.

sla research adopted the critical period hypothesis ( cph ) and applied it to second and foreign language learning, resulting in a host of studies. In its most general version, the cph for sla states that the ‘susceptibility’ or ‘sensitivity’ to language input varies as a function of age, with adult L2 learners being less susceptible to input than child L2 learners. Importantly, the age–susceptibility function is hypothesised to be non-linear. Moving beyond this general version, we find that the cph is conceptualised in a multitude of ways [4] . This state of affairs requires scholars to make explicit their theoretical stance and assumptions [5] , but has the obvious downside that critical findings risk being mitigated as posing a problem to only one aspect of one particular conceptualisation of the cph , whereas other conceptualisations remain unscathed. This overall vagueness concerns two areas in particular, viz. the delineation of the cph 's scope and the formulation of testable predictions. Delineating the scope and formulating falsifiable predictions are, needless to say, fundamental stages in the scientific evaluation of any hypothesis or theory, but the lack of scholarly consensus on these points seems to be particularly pronounced in the case of the cph . This article therefore first presents a brief overview of differing views on these two stages. Then, once the scope of their cph version has been duly identified and empirical data have been collected using solid methods, it is essential that researchers analyse the data patterns soundly in order to assess the predictions made and that they draw justifiable conclusions from the results. As I will argue in great detail, however, the statistical analysis of data patterns as well as their interpretation in cph research – and this includes both critical and supportive studies and overviews – leaves a great deal to be desired. Reanalysing data from a recent cph -supportive study, I illustrate some common statistical fallacies in cph research and demonstrate how one particular cph prediction can be evaluated.

Delineating the scope of the critical period hypothesis

First, the age span for a putative critical period for language acquisition has been delimited in different ways in the literature [4] . Lenneberg's critical period stretched from two years of age to puberty (which he posits at about 14 years of age) [2] , whereas other scholars have drawn the cutoff point at 12, 15, 16 or 18 years of age [6] . Unlike Lenneberg, most researchers today do not define a starting age for the critical period for language learning. Some, however, consider the possibility of the critical period (or a critical period for a specific language area, e.g. phonology) ending much earlier than puberty (e.g. age 9 years [1] , or as early as 12 months in the case of phonology [7] ).

Second, some vagueness remains as to the setting that is relevant to the cph . Does the critical period constrain implicit learning processes only, i.e. only the untutored language acquisition in immersion contexts or does it also apply to (at least partly) instructed learning? Most researchers agree on the former [8] , but much research has included subjects who have had at least some instruction in the L2.

Third, there is no consensus on what the scope of the cp is as far as the areas of language that are concerned. Most researchers agree that a cp is most likely to constrain the acquisition of pronunciation and grammar and, consequently, these are the areas primarily looked into in studies on the cph [9] . Some researchers have also tried to define distinguishable cp s for the different language areas of phonetics, morphology and syntax and even for lexis (see [10] for an overview).

Fourth and last, research into the cph has focused on ‘ultimate attainment’ ( ua ) or the ‘final’ state of L2 proficiency rather than on the rate of learning. From research into the rate of acquisition (e.g. [11] – [13] ), it has become clear that the cph cannot hold for the rate variable. In fact, it has been observed that adult learners proceed faster than child learners at the beginning stages of L2 acquisition. Though theoretical reasons for excluding the rate can be posited (the initial faster rate of learning in adults may be the result of more conscious cognitive strategies rather than to less conscious implicit learning, for instance), rate of learning might from a different perspective also be considered an indicator of ‘susceptibility’ or ‘sensitivity’ to language input. Nevertheless, contemporary sla scholars generally seem to concur that ua and not rate of learning is the dependent variable of primary interest in cph research. These and further scope delineation problems relevant to cph research are discussed in more detail by, among others, Birdsong [9] , DeKeyser and Larson-Hall [14] , Long [10] and Muñoz and Singleton [6] .

Formulating testable hypotheses

Once the relevant cph 's scope has satisfactorily been identified, clear and testable predictions need to be drawn from it. At this stage, the lack of consensus on what the consequences or the actual observable outcome of a cp would have to look like becomes evident. As touched upon earlier, cph research is interested in the end state or ‘ultimate attainment’ ( ua ) in L2 acquisition because this “determines the upper limits of L2 attainment” [9, p. 10]. The range of possible ultimate attainment states thus helps researchers to explore the potential maximum outcome of L2 proficiency before and after the putative critical period.

One strong prediction made by some cph exponents holds that post- cp learners cannot reach native-like L2 competences. Identifying a single native-like post- cp L2 learner would then suffice to falsify all cph s making this prediction. Assessing this prediction is difficult, however, since it is not clear what exactly constitutes sufficient nativelikeness, as illustrated by the discussion on the actual nativelikeness of highly accomplished L2 speakers [15] , [16] . Indeed, there exists a real danger that, in a quest to vindicate the cph , scholars set the bar for L2 learners to match monolinguals increasingly higher – up to Swiftian extremes. Furthermore, the usefulness of comparing the linguistic performance in mono- and bilinguals has been called into question [6] , [17] , [18] . Put simply, the linguistic repertoires of mono- and bilinguals differ by definition and differences in the behavioural outcome will necessarily be found, if only one digs deep enough.

A second strong prediction made by cph proponents is that the function linking age of acquisition and ultimate attainment will not be linear throughout the whole lifespan. Before discussing how this function would have to look like in order for it to constitute cph -consistent evidence, I point out that the ultimate attainment variable can essentially be considered a cumulative measure dependent on the actual variable of interest in cph research, i.e. susceptibility to language input, as well as on such other factors like duration and intensity of learning (within and outside a putative cp ) and possibly a number of other influencing factors. To elaborate, the behavioural outcome, i.e. ultimate attainment, can be assumed to be integrative to the susceptibility function, as Newport [19] correctly points out. Other things being equal, ultimate attainment will therefore decrease as susceptibility decreases. However, decreasing ultimate attainment levels in and by themselves represent no compelling evidence in favour of a cph . The form of the integrative curve must therefore be predicted clearly from the susceptibility function. Additionally, the age of acquisition–ultimate attainment function can take just about any form when other things are not equal, e.g. duration of learning (Does learning last up until time of testing or only for a more or less constant number of years or is it dependent on age itself?) or intensity of learning (Do learners always learn at their maximum susceptibility level or does this intensity vary as a function of age, duration, present attainment and motivation?). The integral of the susceptibility function could therefore be of virtually unlimited complexity and its parameters could be adjusted to fit any age of acquisition–ultimate attainment pattern. It seems therefore astonishing that the distinction between level of sensitivity to language input and level of ultimate attainment is rarely made in the literature. Implicitly or explicitly [20] , the two are more or less equated and the same mathematical functions are expected to describe the two variables if observed across a range of starting ages of acquisition.

But even when the susceptibility and ultimate attainment variables are equated, there remains controversy as to what function linking age of onset of acquisition and ultimate attainment would actually constitute evidence for a critical period. Most scholars agree that not any kind of age effect constitutes such evidence. More specifically, the age of acquisition–ultimate attainment function would need to be different before and after the end of the cp [9] . According to Birdsong [9] , three basic possible patterns proposed in the literature meet this condition. These patterns are presented in Figure 1 . The first pattern describes a steep decline of the age of onset of acquisition ( aoa )–ultimate attainment ( ua ) function up to the end of the cp and a practically non-existent age effect thereafter. Pattern 2 is an “unconventional, although often implicitly invoked” [9, p. 17] notion of the cp function which contains a period of peak attainment (or performance at ceiling), i.e. performance does not vary as a function of age, which is often referred to as a ‘window of opportunity’. This time span is followed by an unbounded decline in ua depending on aoa . Pattern 3 includes characteristics of patterns 1 and 2. At the beginning of the aoa range, performance is at ceiling. The next segment is a downward slope in the age function which ends when performance reaches its floor. Birdsong points out that all of these patterns have been reported in the literature. On closer inspection, however, he concludes that the most convincing function describing these age effects is a simple linear one. Hakuta et al. [21] sketch further theoretically possible predictions of the cph in which the mean performance drops drastically and/or the slope of the aoa – ua proficiency function changes at a certain point.

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

The graphs are based on based on Figure 2 in [9] .

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0069172.g001

Although several patterns have been proposed in the literature, it bears pointing out that the most common explicit prediction corresponds to Birdsong's first pattern, as exemplified by the following crystal-clear statement by DeKeyser, one of the foremost cph proponents:

[A] strong negative correlation between age of acquisition and ultimate attainment throughout the lifespan (or even from birth through middle age), the only age effect documented in many earlier studies, is not evidence for a critical period…[T]he critical period concept implies a break in the AoA–proficiency function, i.e., an age (somewhat variable from individual to individual, of course, and therefore an age range in the aggregate) after which the decline of success rate in one or more areas of language is much less pronounced and/or clearly due to different reasons. [22, p. 445].

DeKeyser and before him among others Johnson and Newport [23] thus conceptualise only one possible pattern which would speak in favour of a critical period: a clear negative age effect before the end of the critical period and a much weaker (if any) negative correlation between age and ultimate attainment after it. This ‘flattened slope’ prediction has the virtue of being much more tangible than the ‘potential nativelikeness’ prediction: Testing it does not necessarily require comparing the L2-learners to a native control group and thus effectively comparing apples and oranges. Rather, L2-learners with different aoa s can be compared amongst themselves without the need to categorise them by means of a native-speaker yardstick, the validity of which is inevitably going to be controversial [15] . In what follows, I will concern myself solely with the ‘flattened slope’ prediction, arguing that, despite its clarity of formulation, cph research has generally used analytical methods that are irrelevant for the purposes of actually testing it.

Inferring non-linearities in critical period research: An overview

Group mean or proportion comparisons.

[T]he main differences can be found between the native group and all other groups – including the earliest learner group – and between the adolescence group and all other groups. However, neither the difference between the two childhood groups nor the one between the two adulthood groups reached significance, which indicates that the major changes in eventual perceived nativelikeness of L2 learners can be associated with adolescence. [15, p. 270].

Similar group comparisons aimed at investigating the effect of aoa on ua have been carried out by both cph advocates and sceptics (among whom Bialystok and Miller [25, pp. 136–139], Birdsong and Molis [26, p. 240], Flege [27, pp. 120–121], Flege et al. [28, pp. 85–86], Johnson [29, p. 229], Johnson and Newport [23, p. 78], McDonald [30, pp. 408–410] and Patowski [31, pp. 456–458]). To be clear, not all of these authors drew direct conclusions about the aoa – ua function on the basis of these groups comparisons, but their group comparisons have been cited as indicative of a cph -consistent non-continuous age effect, as exemplified by the following quote by DeKeyser [22] :

Where group comparisons are made, younger learners always do significantly better than the older learners. The behavioral evidence, then, suggests a non-continuous age effect with a “bend” in the AoA–proficiency function somewhere between ages 12 and 16. [22, p. 448].

The first problem with group comparisons like these and drawing inferences on the basis thereof is that they require that a continuous variable, aoa , be split up into discrete bins. More often than not, the boundaries between these bins are drawn in an arbitrary fashion, but what is more troublesome is the loss of information and statistical power that such discretisation entails (see [32] for the extreme case of dichotomisation). If we want to find out more about the relationship between aoa and ua , why throw away most of the aoa information and effectively reduce the ua data to group means and the variance in those groups?

Comparison of correlation coefficients.

Correlation-based inferences about slope discontinuities have similarly explicitly been made by cph advocates and skeptics alike, e.g. Bialystok and Miller [25, pp. 136 and 140], DeKeyser and colleagues [22] , [44] and Flege et al. [45, pp. 166 and 169]. Others did not explicitly infer the presence or absence of slope differences from the subset correlations they computed (among others Birdsong and Molis [26] , DeKeyser [8] , Flege et al. [28] and Johnson [29] ), but their studies nevertheless featured in overviews discussing discontinuities [14] , [22] . Indeed, the most recent overview draws a strong conclusion about the validity of the cph 's ‘flattened slope’ prediction on the basis of these subset correlations:

In those studies where the two groups are described separately, the correlation is much higher for the younger than for the older group, except in Birdsong and Molis (2001) [ =  [26] , JV], where there was a ceiling effect for the younger group. This global picture from more than a dozen studies provides support for the non-continuity of the decline in the AoA–proficiency function, which all researchers agree is a hallmark of a critical period phenomenon. [22, p. 448].

In Johnson and Newport's specific case [23] , their correlation-based inference that ua levels off after puberty happened to be largely correct: the gjt scores are more or less randomly distributed around a near-horizontal trend line [26] . Ultimately, however, it rests on the fallacy of confusing correlation coefficients with slopes, which seriously calls into question conclusions such as DeKeyser's (cf. the quote above).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0069172.g002

Lower correlation coefficients in older aoa groups may therefore be largely due to differences in ua variance, which have been reported in several studies [23] , [26] , [28] , [29] (see [46] for additional references). Greater variability in ua with increasing age is likely due to factors other than age proper [47] , such as the concomitant greater variability in exposure to literacy, degree of education, motivation and opportunity for language use, and by itself represents evidence neither in favour of nor against the cph .

Regression approaches.

Having demonstrated that neither group mean or proportion comparisons nor correlation coefficient comparisons can directly address the ‘flattened slope’ prediction, I now turn to the studies in which regression models were computed with aoa as a predictor variable and ua as the outcome variable. Once again, this category of studies is not mutually exclusive with the two categories discussed above.

In a large-scale study using self-reports and approximate aoa s derived from a sample of the 1990 U.S. Census, Stevens found that the probability with which immigrants from various countries stated that they spoke English ‘very well’ decreased curvilinearly as a function of aoa [48] . She noted that this development is similar to the pattern found by Johnson and Newport [23] but that it contains no indication of an “abruptly defined ‘critical’ or sensitive period in L2 learning” [48, p. 569]. However, she modelled the self-ratings using an ordinal logistic regression model in which the aoa variable was logarithmically transformed. Technically, this is perfectly fine, but one should be careful not to read too much into the non-linear curves found. In logistic models, the outcome variable itself is modelled linearly as a function of the predictor variables and is expressed in log-odds. In order to compute the corresponding probabilities, these log-odds are transformed using the logistic function. Consequently, even if the model is specified linearly, the predicted probabilities will not lie on a perfectly straight line when plotted as a function of any one continuous predictor variable. Similarly, when the predictor variable is first logarithmically transformed and then used to linearly predict an outcome variable, the function linking the predicted outcome variables and the untransformed predictor variable is necessarily non-linear. Thus, non-linearities follow naturally from Stevens's model specifications. Moreover, cph -consistent discontinuities in the aoa – ua function cannot be found using her model specifications as they did not contain any parameters allowing for this.

Using data similar to Stevens's, Bialystok and Hakuta found that the link between the self-rated English competences of Chinese- and Spanish-speaking immigrants and their aoa could be described by a straight line [49] . In contrast to Stevens, Bialystok and Hakuta used a regression-based method allowing for changes in the function's slope, viz. locally weighted scatterplot smoothing ( lowess ). Informally, lowess is a non-parametrical method that relies on an algorithm that fits the dependent variable for small parts of the range of the independent variable whilst guaranteeing that the overall curve does not contain sudden jumps (for technical details, see [50] ). Hakuta et al. used an even larger sample from the same 1990 U.S. Census data on Chinese- and Spanish-speaking immigrants (2.3 million observations) [21] . Fitting lowess curves, no discontinuities in the aoa – ua slope could be detected. Moreover, the authors found that piecewise linear regression models, i.e. regression models containing a parameter that allows a sudden drop in the curve or a change of its slope, did not provide a better fit to the data than did an ordinary regression model without such a parameter.

To sum up, I have argued at length that regression approaches are superior to group mean and correlation coefficient comparisons for the purposes of testing the ‘flattened slope’ prediction. Acknowledging the reservations vis-à-vis self-estimated ua s, we still find that while the relationship between aoa and ua is not necessarily perfectly linear in the studies discussed, the data do not lend unequivocal support to this prediction. In the following section, I will reanalyse data from a recent empirical paper on the cph by DeKeyser et al. [44] . The first goal of this reanalysis is to further illustrate some of the statistical fallacies encountered in cph studies. Second, by making the computer code available I hope to demonstrate how the relevant regression models, viz. piecewise regression models, can be fitted and how the aoa representing the optimal breakpoint can be identified. Lastly, the findings of this reanalysis will contribute to our understanding of how aoa affects ua as measured using a gjt .

Summary of DeKeyser et al. (2010)

I chose to reanalyse a recent empirical paper on the cph by DeKeyser et al. [44] (henceforth DK et al.). This paper lends itself well to a reanalysis since it exhibits two highly commendable qualities: the authors spell out their hypotheses lucidly and provide detailed numerical and graphical data descriptions. Moreover, the paper's lead author is very clear on what constitutes a necessary condition for accepting the cph : a non-linearity in the age of onset of acquisition ( aoa )–ultimate attainment ( ua ) function, with ua declining less strongly as a function of aoa in older, post- cp arrivals compared to younger arrivals [14] , [22] . Lastly, it claims to have found cross-linguistic evidence from two parallel studies backing the cph and should therefore be an unsuspected source to cph proponents.

The authors set out to test the following hypotheses:

• Hypothesis 1: For both the L2 English and the L2 Hebrew group, the slope of the age of arrival–ultimate attainment function will not be linear throughout the lifespan, but will instead show a marked flattening between adolescence and adulthood.
• Hypothesis 2: The relationship between aptitude and ultimate attainment will differ markedly for the young and older arrivals, with significance only for the latter. (DK et al., p. 417)

Both hypotheses were purportedly confirmed, which in the authors' view provides evidence in favour of cph . The problem with this conclusion, however, is that it is based on a comparison of correlation coefficients. As I have argued above, correlation coefficients are not to be confused with regression coefficients and cannot be used to directly address research hypotheses concerning slopes, such as Hypothesis 1. In what follows, I will reanalyse the relationship between DK et al.'s aoa and gjt data in order to address Hypothesis 1. Additionally, I will lay bare a problem with the way in which Hypothesis 2 was addressed. The extracted data and the computer code used for the reanalysis are provided as supplementary materials, allowing anyone interested to scrutinise and easily reproduce my whole analysis and carry out their own computations (see ‘supporting information’).

Data extraction

In order to verify whether we did in fact extract the data points to a satisfactory degree of accuracy, I computed summary statistics for the extracted aoa and gjt data and checked these against the descriptive statistics provided by DK et al. (pp. 421 and 427). These summary statistics for the extracted data are presented in Table 1 . In addition, I computed the correlation coefficients for the aoa – gjt relationship for the whole aoa range and for aoa -defined subgroups and checked these coefficients against those reported by DK et al. (pp. 423 and 428). The correlation coefficients computed using the extracted data are presented in Table 2 . Both checks strongly suggest the extracted data to be virtually identical to the original data, and Dr DeKeyser confirmed this to be the case in response to an earlier draft of the present paper (personal communication, 6 May 2013).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0069172.t001

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0069172.t002

Results and Discussion

Modelling the link between age of onset of acquisition and ultimate attainment.

I first replotted the aoa and gjt data we extracted from DK et al.'s scatterplots and added non-parametric scatterplot smoothers in order to investigate whether any changes in slope in the aoa – gjt function could be revealed, as per Hypothesis 1. Figures 3 and 4 show this not to be the case. Indeed, simple linear regression models that model gjt as a function of aoa provide decent fits for both the North America and the Israel data, explaining 65% and 63% of the variance in gjt scores, respectively. The parameters of these models are given in Table 3 .

The trend line is a non-parametric scatterplot smoother. The scatterplot itself is a near-perfect replication of DK et al.'s Fig. 1.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0069172.g003

The trend line is a non-parametric scatterplot smoother. The scatterplot itself is a near-perfect replication of DK et al.'s Fig. 5.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0069172.g004

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0069172.t003

To ensure that both segments are joined at the breakpoint, the predictor variable is first centred at the breakpoint value, i.e. the breakpoint value is subtracted from the original predictor variable values. For a blow-by-blow account of how such models can be fitted in r , I refer to an example analysis by Baayen [55, pp. 214–222].

Solid: regression with breakpoint at aoa 18 (dashed lines represent its 95% confidence interval); dot-dash: regression without breakpoint.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0069172.g005

Solid: regression with breakpoint at aoa 18 (dashed lines represent its 95% confidence interval); dot-dash (hardly visible due to near-complete overlap): regression without breakpoint.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0069172.g006

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0069172.t004

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0069172.g007

Solid: regression with breakpoint at aoa 16 (dashed lines represent its 95% confidence interval); dot-dash: regression without breakpoint.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0069172.g008

Solid: regression with breakpoint at aoa 6 (dashed lines represent its 95% confidence interval); dot-dash (hardly visible due to near-complete overlap): regression without breakpoint.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0069172.g009

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0069172.t005

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0069172.t006

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0069172.t007

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0069172.t008

In sum, a regression model that allows for changes in the slope of the the aoa – gjt function to account for putative critical period effects provides a somewhat better fit to the North American data than does an everyday simple regression model. The improvement in model fit is marginal, however, and including a breakpoint does not result in any detectable improvement of model fit to the Israel data whatsoever. Breakpoint models therefore fail to provide solid cross-linguistic support in favour of critical period effects: across both data sets, gjt can satisfactorily be modelled as a linear function of aoa .

On partialling out ‘age at testing’

As I have argued above, correlation coefficients cannot be used to test hypotheses about slopes. When the correct procedure is carried out on DK et al.'s data, no cross-linguistically robust evidence for changes in the aoa – gjt function was found. In addition to comparing the zero-order correlations between aoa and gjt , however, DK et al. computed partial correlations in which the variance in aoa associated with the participants' age at testing ( aat ; a potentially confounding variable) was filtered out. They found that these partial correlations between aoa and gjt , which are given in Table 9 , differed between age groups in that they are stronger for younger than for older participants. This, DK et al. argue, constitutes additional evidence in favour of the cph . At this point, I can no longer provide my own analysis of DK et al.'s data seeing as the pertinent data points were not plotted. Nevertheless, the detailed descriptions by DK et al. strongly suggest that the use of these partial correlations is highly problematic. Most importantly, and to reiterate, correlations (whether zero-order or partial ones) are actually of no use when testing hypotheses concerning slopes. Still, one may wonder why the partial correlations differ across age groups. My surmise is that these differences are at least partly the by-product of an imbalance in the sampling procedure.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0069172.t009

The upshot of this brief discussion is that the partial correlation differences reported by DK et al. are at least partly the result of an imbalance in the sampling procedure: aoa and aat were simply less intimately tied for the young arrivals in the North America study than for the older arrivals with L2 English or for all of the L2 Hebrew participants. In an ideal world, we would like to fix aat or ascertain that it at most only weakly correlates with aoa . This, however, would result in a strong correlation between aoa and another potential confound variable, length of residence in the L2 environment, bringing us back to square one. Allowing for only moderate correlations between aoa and aat might improve our predicament somewhat, but even in that case, we should tread lightly when making inferences on the basis of statistical control procedures [61] .

On estimating the role of aptitude

Having shown that Hypothesis 1 could not be confirmed, I now turn to Hypothesis 2, which predicts a differential role of aptitude for ua in sla in different aoa groups. More specifically, it states that the correlation between aptitude and gjt performance will be significant only for older arrivals. The correlation coefficients of the relationship between aptitude and gjt are presented in Table 10 .

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0069172.t010

The problem with both the wording of Hypothesis 2 and the way in which it is addressed is the following: it is assumed that a variable has a reliably different effect in different groups when the effect reaches significance in one group but not in the other. This logic is fairly widespread within several scientific disciplines (see e.g. [62] for a discussion). Nonetheless, it is demonstrably fallacious [63] . Here we will illustrate the fallacy for the specific case of comparing two correlation coefficients.

Apart from not being replicated in the North America study, does this difference actually show anything? I contend that it does not: what is of interest are not so much the correlation coefficients, but rather the interactions between aoa and aptitude in models predicting gjt . These interactions could be investigated by fitting a multiple regression model in which the postulated cp breakpoint governs the slope of both aoa and aptitude. If such a model provided a substantially better fit to the data than a model without a breakpoint for the aptitude slope and if the aptitude slope changes in the expected direction (i.e. a steeper slope for post- cp than for younger arrivals) for different L1–L2 pairings, only then would this particular prediction of the cph be borne out.

Using data extracted from a paper reporting on two recent studies that purport to provide evidence in favour of the cph and that, according to its authors, represent a major improvement over earlier studies (DK et al., p. 417), it was found that neither of its two hypotheses were actually confirmed when using the proper statistical tools. As a matter of fact, the gjt scores continue to decline at essentially the same rate even beyond the end of the putative critical period. According to the paper's lead author, such a finding represents a serious problem to his conceptualisation of the cph [14] ). Moreover, although modelling a breakpoint representing the end of a cp at aoa 16 may improve the statistical model slightly in study on learners of English in North America, the study on learners of Hebrew in Israel fails to confirm this finding. In fact, even if we were to accept the optimal breakpoint computed for the Israel study, it lies at aoa 6 and is associated with a different geometrical pattern.

Diverging age trends in parallel studies with participants with different L2s have similarly been reported by Birdsong and Molis [26] and are at odds with an L2-independent cph . One parsimonious explanation of such conflicting age trends may be that the overall, cross-linguistic age trend is in fact linear, but that fluctuations in the data (due to factors unaccounted for or randomness) may sometimes give rise to a ‘stretched L’-shaped pattern ( Figure 1, left panel ) and sometimes to a ‘stretched 7’-shaped pattern ( Figure 1 , middle panel; see also [66] for a similar comment).

Importantly, the criticism that DeKeyser and Larsson-Hall levy against two studies reporting findings similar to the present [48] , [49] , viz. that the data consisted of self-ratings of questionable validity [14] , does not apply to the present data set. In addition, DK et al. did not exclude any outliers from their analyses, so I assume that DeKeyser and Larsson-Hall's criticism [14] of Birdsong and Molis's study [26] , i.e. that the findings were due to the influence of outliers, is not applicable to the present data either. For good measure, however, I refitted the regression models with and without breakpoints after excluding one potentially problematic data point per model. The following data points had absolute standardised residuals larger than 2.5 in the original models without breakpoints as well as in those with breakpoints: the participant with aoa 17 and a gjt score of 125 in the North America study and the participant with aoa 12 and a gjt score of 117 in the Israel study. The resultant models were virtually identical to the original models (see Script S1 ). Furthermore, the aoa variable was sufficiently fine-grained and the aoa – gjt curve was not ‘presmoothed’ by the prior aggregation of gjt across parts of the aoa range (see [51] for such a criticism of another study). Lastly, seven of the nine “problems with supposed counter-evidence” to the cph discussed by Long [5] do not apply either, viz. (1) “[c]onfusion of rate and ultimate attainment”, (2) “[i]nappropriate choice of subjects”, (3) “[m]easurement of AO”, (4) “[l]eading instructions to raters”, (6) “[u]se of markedly non-native samples making near-native samples more likely to sound native to raters”, (7) “[u]nreliable or invalid measures”, and (8) “[i]nappropriate L1–L2 pairings”. Problem No. 5 (“Assessments based on limited samples and/or “language-like” behavior”) may be apropos given that only gjt data were used, leaving open the theoretical possibility that other measures might have yielded a different outcome. Finally, problem No. 9 (“Faulty interpretation of statistical patterns”) is, of course, precisely what I have turned the spotlights on.

Conclusions

The critical period hypothesis remains a hotly contested issue in the psycholinguistics of second-language acquisition. Discussions about the impact of empirical findings on the tenability of the cph generally revolve around the reliability of the data gathered (e.g. [5] , [14] , [22] , [52] , [67] , [68] ) and such methodological critiques are of course highly desirable. Furthermore, the debate often centres on the question of exactly what version of the cph is being vindicated or debunked. These versions differ mainly in terms of its scope, specifically with regard to the relevant age span, setting and language area, and the testable predictions they make. But even when the cph 's scope is clearly demarcated and its main prediction is spelt out lucidly, the issue remains to what extent the empirical findings can actually be marshalled in support of the relevant cph version. As I have shown in this paper, empirical data have often been taken to support cph versions predicting that the relationship between age of acquisition and ultimate attainment is not strictly linear, even though the statistical tools most commonly used (notably group mean and correlation coefficient comparisons) were, crudely put, irrelevant to this prediction. Methods that are arguably valid, e.g. piecewise regression and scatterplot smoothing, have been used in some studies [21] , [26] , [49] , but these studies have been criticised on other grounds. To my knowledge, such methods have never been used by scholars who explicitly subscribe to the cph .

I suspect that what may be going on is a form of ‘confirmation bias’ [69] , a cognitive bias at play in diverse branches of human knowledge seeking: Findings judged to be consistent with one's own hypothesis are hardly questioned, whereas findings inconsistent with one's own hypothesis are scrutinised much more strongly and criticised on all sorts of points [70] – [73] . My reanalysis of DK et al.'s recent paper may be a case in point. cph exponents used correlation coefficients to address their prediction about the slope of a function, as had been done in a host of earlier studies. Finding a result that squared with their expectations, they did not question the technical validity of their results, or at least they did not report this. (In fact, my reanalysis is actually a case in point in two respects: for an earlier draft of this paper, I had computed the optimal position of the breakpoints incorrectly, resulting in an insignificant improvement of model fit for the North American data rather than a borderline significant one. Finding a result that squared with my expectations, I did not question the technical validity of my results – until this error was kindly pointed out to me by Martijn Wieling (University of Tübingen).) That said, I am keen to point out that the statistical analyses in this particular paper, though suboptimal, are, as far as I could gather, reported correctly, i.e. the confirmation bias does not seem to have resulted in the blatant misreportings found elsewhere (see [74] for empirical evidence and discussion). An additional point to these authors' credit is that, apart from explicitly identifying their cph version's scope and making crystal-clear predictions, they present data descriptions that actually permit quantitative reassessments and have a history of doing so (e.g. the appendix in [8] ). This leads me to believe that they analysed their data all in good conscience and to hope that they, too, will conclude that their own data do not, in fact, support their hypothesis.

I end this paper on an upbeat note. Even though I have argued that the analytical tools employed in cph research generally leave much to be desired, the original data are, so I hope, still available. This provides researchers, cph supporters and sceptics alike, with an exciting opportunity to reanalyse their data sets using the tools outlined in the present paper and publish their findings at minimal cost of time and resources (for instance, as a comment to this paper). I would therefore encourage scholars to engage their old data sets and to communicate their analyses openly, e.g. by voluntarily publishing their data and computer code alongside their articles or comments. Ideally, cph supporters and sceptics would join forces to agree on a protocol for a high-powered study in order to provide a truly convincing answer to a core issue in sla .

Supporting Information

Dataset s1..

aoa and gjt data extracted from DeKeyser et al.'s North America study.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0069172.s001

Dataset S2.

aoa and gjt data extracted from DeKeyser et al.'s Israel study.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0069172.s002

Script with annotated R code used for the reanalysis. All add-on packages used can be installed from within R.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0069172.s003

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Irmtraud Kaiser (University of Fribourg) for helping me to get an overview of the literature on the critical period hypothesis in second language acquisition. Thanks are also due to Martijn Wieling (currently University of Tübingen) for pointing out an error in the R code accompanying an earlier draft of this paper.

Author Contributions

Analyzed the data: JV. Wrote the paper: JV.

• 1. Penfield W, Roberts L (1959) Speech and brain mechanisms. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• 2. Lenneberg EH (1967) Biological foundations of language. New York: Wiley.
• View Article
• Google Scholar
• 10. Long MH (2007) Problems in SLA. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• 14. DeKeyser R, Larson-Hall J (2005) What does the critical period really mean? In: Kroll and De Groot [75], 88–108.
• 19. Newport EL (1991) Contrasting conceptions of the critical period for language. In: Carey S, Gelman R, editors, The epigenesis of mind: Essays on biology and cognition, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 111–130.
• 20. Birdsong D (2005) Interpreting age effects in second language acquisition. In: Kroll and De Groot [75], 109–127.
• 22. DeKeyser R (2012) Age effects in second language learning. In: Gass SM, Mackey A, editors, The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition, London: Routledge. 442–460.
• 24. Weisstein EW. Discontinuity. From MathWorld –A Wolfram Web Resource. Available: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Discontinuity.html . Accessed 2012 March 2.
• 27. Flege JE (1999) Age of learning and second language speech. In: Birdsong [76], 101–132.
• 36. Champely S (2009) pwr: Basic functions for power analysis. Available: http://cran.r-project.org/package=pwr . R package, version 1.1.1.
• 37. R Core Team (2013) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Available: http://www.r-project.org/ . Software, version 2.15.3.
• 47. Hyltenstam K, Abrahamsson N (2003) Maturational constraints in sla . In: Doughty CJ, Long MH, editors, The handbook of second language acquisition, Malden, MA: Blackwell. 539–588.
• 49. Bialystok E, Hakuta K (1999) Confounded age: Linguistic and cognitive factors in age differences for second language acquisition. In: Birdsong [76], 161–181.
• 52. DeKeyser R (2006) A critique of recent arguments against the critical period hypothesis. In: Abello-Contesse C, Chacón-Beltrán R, López-Jiménez MD, Torreblanca-López MM, editors, Age in L2 acquisition and teaching, Bern: Peter Lang. 49–58.
• 55. Baayen RH (2008) Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• 56. Fox J (2002) Robust regression. Appendix to An R and S-Plus Companion to Applied Regression. Available: http://cran.r-project.org/doc/contrib/Fox-Companion/appendix.html .
• 57. Ripley B, Hornik K, Gebhardt A, Firth D (2012) MASS: Support functions and datasets for Venables and Ripley's MASS. Available: http://cran.r-project.org/package=MASS . R package, version 7.3–17.
• 58. Zuur AF, Ieno EN, Walker NJ, Saveliev AA, Smith GM (2009) Mixed effects models and extensions in ecology with R. New York: Springer.
• 59. Pinheiro J, Bates D, DebRoy S, Sarkar D, R Core Team (2013) nlme: Linear and nonlinear mixed effects models. Available: http://cran.r-project.org/package=nlme . R package, version 3.1–108.
• 65. Field A (2009) Discovering statistics using SPSS. London: SAGE 3rd edition.
• 66. Birdsong D (2009) Age and the end state of second language acquisition. In: Ritchie WC, Bhatia TK, editors, The new handbook of second language acquisition, Bingley: Emerlad. 401–424.
• 75. Kroll JF, De Groot AMB, editors (2005) Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches. New York: Oxford University Press.
• 76. Birdsong D, editor (1999) Second language acquisition and the critical period hypothesis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Critical Period Hypothesis

The critical period hypothesis is the subject of a long-standing debate in linguistics and language acquisition over the extent to which the ability to acquire language is biologically linked to age. The hypothesis claims that there is an ideal ‘window’ of time to acquire language in a linguistically rich environment, after which further language acquisition becomes much more difficult and effortful.

The critical period hypothesis states that the first few years of life is the crucial time in which an individual can acquire a first language if presented with adequate stimuli. If language input doesn’t occur until after this time, the individual will never achieve a full command of language—especially grammatical systems.

The evidence for such a period is limited, and support stems largely from theoretical arguments and analogies to other critical periods in biology such as visual development, but nonetheless is widely accepted. The nature of this phenomenon, however, has been one of the most fiercely debated issues in psycholinguistics and cognitive science in general for decades. Some writers have suggested a “sensitive” or “optimal” period rather than a critical one; others dispute the causes (physical maturation, cognitive factors). The duration of the period also varies greatly in different accounts. In second language acquisition, the strongest evidence for the critical period hypothesis is in the study of accent, where most older learners do not reach a native-like level. However, under certain conditions, native-like accent has been observed, suggesting that accent is affected by multiple factors, such as identity and motivation, rather than a critical period biological constraint (Moyer, 1999; Bongaerts et al., 1995; Young-Scholten, 2002).

The critical period hypothesis was first proposed by Montreal neurologist Wilder Penfield and co-author Lamar Roberts in a 1959 paper Speech and Brain Mechanisms, and was popularised by Eric Lenneberg in 1967 with Biological Foundations of Language.

Lenneberg states that there are maturational constraints on the time a first language can be acquired. First language acquisition relies on neuroplasticity. If language acquisition does not occur by puberty, some aspects of language can be learnt but full mastery cannot be achieved. This was called the “critical period hypothesis.”

An interesting example of this is the case of Genie. A thirteen-year-old victim of lifelong child abuse, Genie was discovered in her home on November 4, 1970, strapped to a potty chair and wearing diapers. She appeared to be entirely without language. Her father had judged her retarded at birth and had chosen to isolate her, and so she had remained until her discovery.

It was an ideal opportunity to test the theory that a nurturing environment could somehow make up for a total lack of language past the age of 12. She was unable to acquire language completely, although the degree to which she acquired language is disputed.

Detractors of the “Critical Period Hypothesis” point out that in this example and others like it (see Feral children), the child is hardly growing up in a nurturing environment, and that the lack of language acquisition in later life may be due to the results of a generally abusive environment rather than being specifically due to a lack of exposure to language.

Recently, it has been suggested that if a critical period does exist, it may be due at least partially to the delayed development of the prefrontal cortex in human children. Researchers have suggested that delayed development of the prefrontal cortex and a concomitant delay in the development of cognitive control may facilitate convention learning, allowing young children to learn language far more easily than cognitively mature adults and older children. This pattern of prefrontal development is unique to humans among similar mammalian (and primate) species, and may explain why humans—and not chimpanzees—are so adept at learning language.

Second language acquisition

The theory has often been extended to a critical period for second language acquisition (SLA), although this is much less widely accepted. Certainly, older learners of a second language rarely achieve the native-like fluency that younger learners display, despite often progressing faster than children in the initial stages. David Singleton states that in learning a second language, “younger = better in the long run,” but points out that there are many exceptions, noting that five percent of adult bilinguals master a second language even though they begin learning it when they are well into adulthood—long after any critical period has presumably come to a close.

While the window for learning a second language never completely closes, certain linguistic aspects appear to be more affected by the age of the learner than others. For example, adult second-language learners nearly always retain an immediately identifiable foreign accent, including some who display perfect grammar (Oyama 1976). Some writers have suggested a younger critical age for learning phonology than for syntax. Singleton (1995) reports that there is no critical period for learning vocabulary in a second language. Robertson (2002)] observed that factors other than age may be even more significant in successful second language learning, such as personal motivation, anxiety, input and output skills, settings and time commitment.

On reviewing the published material, Bialystok and Hakuta (1994) conclude that second-language learning is not necessarily subject to biological critical periods, but “on average, there is a continuous decline in ability [to learn] with age.”

Experimental and observational studies

How children acquire native language (L1) and the relevance of this to foreign language (L2) learning has long been debated. Although evidence for L2 learning ability declining with age is controversial, a common notion is that children learn L2s easily, whilst older learners rarely achieve fluency. This assumption stems from ‘critical period’ (CP) ideas. A CP was popularised by Eric Lenneberg in 1967 for L1 acquisition, but considerable interest now surrounds age effects on second language acquisition (SLA). SLA theories explain learning processes and suggest causal factors for a possible CP for SLA, mainly attempting to explain apparent differences in language aptitudes of children and adults by distinct learning routes, and clarifying them through psychological mechanisms. Research explores these ideas and hypotheses, but results are varied: some demonstrate pre-pubescent children acquire language easily, and some that older learners have the advantage, whilst others focus on existence of a CP for SLA. Recent studies (e.g. Mayberry and Lock, 2003) have recognised certain aspects of SLA may be affected by age, whilst others remain intact. The objective of this study is to investigate whether capacity for vocabulary acquisition decreases with age.

Other work has challenged the biological approach; Krashen (1975) re-analysed clinical data used as evidence and concluded cerebral specialisation occurs much earlier than Lenneberg calculated. Therefore, if a CP exists, it does not coincide with lateralisation. Despite concerns with Lenneberg’s original evidence and the dissociation of lateralisation from the language CP idea, however, the concept of a CP remains a viable hypothesis, which later work has better explained and substantiated.

Effects of aging

A review of SLA theories and their explanations for age-related differences is necessary before considering empirical studies. The most reductionist theories are those of Penfield and Roberts (1959) and Lenneberg (1967), which stem from L1 and brain damage studies; children who suffer impairment before puberty typically recover and (re-)develop normal language, whereas adults rarely recover fully, and often do not regain verbal abilities beyond the point reached five months after impairment. Both theories agree that children have a neurological advantage in learning languages, and that puberty correlates with a turning point in ability. They assert that language acquisition occurs primarily, possibly exclusively, during childhood as the brain loses plasticity after a certain age. It then becomes rigid and fixed, and loses the ability for adaptation and reorganisation, rendering language (re-)learning difficult. Penfield and Roberts (1959) claim children under nine can learn up to three languages: early exposure to different languages activates a reflex in the brain allowing them to switch between languages without confusion or translation into L1 (Penfield, 1964). Lenneberg (1967) asserts that if no language is learned by puberty, it cannot be learned in a normal, functional sense. He also supports Penfield and Roberts’ (1959) proposal of neurological mechanisms responsible for maturational change in language learning abilities. This, Lenneberg maintains, coincides with brain lateralisation and left-hemispherical specialisation for language around age thirteen: infants’ motor and linguistic skills develop simultaneously, but by age thirteen the cerebral hemispheres’ functions separate and become set, making language acquisition extremely difficult (Lenneberg, 1967).

Deaf and feral children

Cases of deaf and feral children provide evidence for a biologically determined CP for L1. Feral children are those not exposed to language in infancy/childhood due to being brought up in the wild, in isolation and/or confinement. A classic example is ‘Genie’, who was deprived of social interaction from birth until discovered aged thirteen (post-pubescent). She was completely without language, and after seven years of rehabilitation still lacked linguistic competence. Another case is ‘Isabelle’, who was incarcerated with her deaf-mute mother until the age of six and a half (pre-pubescent). She also had no language skills, but, unlike Genie, quickly acquired normal language abilities through systematic specialist training.

Such studies are however problematic; isolation can result in general retardation and emotional disturbances, which may confound conclusions drawn about language abilities. Studies of deaf children learning American Sign Language (ASL) have fewer methodological weaknesses. Newport and Supalla (1987) studied ASL acquisition in deaf children differing in age of exposure; few were exposed to ASL from birth, most of them first learned it at school.

Results showed a linear decline in performance with increasing age of exposure; those exposed to ASL from birth performed best, and ‘late learners’ worst, on all production and comprehension tests. Their study thus provides direct evidence for language learning ability decreasing with age, but it does not add to Lennerberg’s CP hypothesis as even the oldest children, the ‘late learners’, were exposed to ASL by age four, and had therefore not reached puberty, the proposed end of the CP. In addition, the declines were shown to be linear, with no sudden ‘drop off’ of ability at a certain age, as would be predicted by a strong CP hypothesis. That the children performed significantly worse, however, suggests the CP may end earlier than originally postulated.

Behavioural approaches

Contrary to biological views, behavioural approaches assert that languages are learned as any other behaviour, through conditioning. Skinner (1957) details how operant conditioning forms connections with the environment through interaction and, alongside O. Hobart Mowrer (1960), applies the ideas to language acquisition. Mowrer hypothesises that languages are acquired through rewarded imitation of ‘language models’; the model must have an emotional link to the learner (e.g. parent, spouse), as imitation then brings pleasant feelings which function as positive reinforcement. Because new connections between behaviour and the environment are formed and reformed throughout life, it is possible to gain new skills, including language(s), at any age.

To accommodate observed language learning differences between children and adults, Felix (1985) describes that children, whose brains create countless new connections daily, may handle the language learning process more effectively than do adults. This assumption, however, remains untested and is not a reliable explanation for children’s aptitude for L2 learning. Problematic of the behaviourist approach is its assumption that all learning, verbal and non-verbal, occurs through the same processes. A more general problem is that, as Pinker (1995) notes, almost every sentence anybody voices is an original combination of words, never previously uttered, therefore a language cannot consist only of word combinations learned through repetition and conditioning; the brain must contain innate means of creating endless amounts of grammatical sentences from a limited vocabulary. This is precisely what Chomsky (1965) argues with his proposition of a Universal Grammar (UG).

Universal Grammar

Chomsky (1965) asserts that environmental factors must be relatively unimportant for language emergence, as so many different factors surround children acquiring L1. Instead, Chomsky claims language learners possess innate principles building a ‘language acquisition device’ (LAD) in the brain. These principles denote restricted possibilities for variation within the language, and enable learners to construct a grammar out of ‘raw input’ collected from the environment. Input alone cannot explain language acquisition because it is degenerated by characteristic features such as stutters, and lacks corrections from which learners discover incorrect variations.

Singleton and Newport (2004) demonstrate the function of UG in their study of ‘Simon’. Simon learned ASL as his L1 from parents who had learned it as an L2 after puberty and provided him with imperfect models. Results showed Simon learned normal and logical rules and was able to construct an organised linguistic system, despite being exposed to inconsistent input. Chomsky developed UG to explain L1 acquisition data, but maintains it also applies to L2 learners who achieve near-native fluency not attributable solely to input and interaction (Chomsky, 1965).

Although it does not describe an optimal age for SLA, the theory implies that younger children can learn languages more easily than older learners, as adults must reactivate principles developed during L1 learning and forge an SLA path: children can learn several languages simultaneously as long as the principles are still active and they are exposed to sufficient language samples (Pinker, 1995). The parents of Singleton and Newport’s (2004) patient also had linguistic abilities in line with these age-related predictions; they learned ASL after puberty and never reached complete fluency.

Problems within UG Theory for L2 acquisition

There are, however, problems with the extrapolation of the UG theory to SLA: L2 learners go through several phases of types of utterance that are not similar to their L1 or the L2 they hear. Other factors include the cognitive maturity of most L2 learners, that they have different motivation for learning the language, and already speak one language fluently. Other studies also highlight these problems: Dehaene (1999) investigates how cerebral circuits used to handling one language adapt for the efficient storage of two or more. He reports observations of cerebral activation when reading and translating two languages. They found the most activated brain areas during the tasks were not those generally associated with language, but rather those related to mapping orthography to phonology. They conclude that the left temporal lobe is the physical base of L1, but the L2 is ‘stored’ elsewhere, thus explaining cases of bilingual aphasia where one language remains intact. They maintain that only languages learned simultaneously from birth are represented, and cause activity, in the left hemisphere: any L2 learned later is stored separately (possibly in the right hemisphere), and rarely activates the left temporal lobe.

This suggests that L2 may be qualitatively different from L1 due to its dissociation from the ‘normal’ language brain regions, thus the extrapolation of L1 studies and theories to SLA is placed in question. A further disadvantage of UG is that supporting empirical data are taken from a limited sample of syntactic phenomena: a general theory of language acquisition should cover a larger range of phenomena. Despite these problems, several other theorists have based their own models of language learning on it; amongst others Felix’ (1985) ‘competing cognitive systems’ idea. These ideas are supported by empirical evidence, which consequently supports Chomsky’s ideas. Due to this support and its descriptive and explanatory strength, many theorists regard UG as the best explanation of language, and particularly grammar, acquisition.

UG and the critical period hypothesis

A key question about the relationship of UG and SLA is: is the language acquisition device posited by Chomsky and his followers still accessible to learners of a second language? Research suggests that it becomes inaccessible at a certain age (see Critical Period Hypothesis), and learners increasingly depended on explicit teaching (see pedagogical effects above, and age below). In other words, although all of language may be governed by UG, older learners might have great difficulty in gaining access to the target language’s underlying rules from positive input alone.

Piaget (1926) is one psychologist reluctant to ascribe specific innate linguistic abilities to children: he considers the brain a homogeneous computational system, with language acquisition being one part of general learning. He agrees this development may be innate, but claims there is no specific language acquisition module in the brain. Instead, he suggests external influences and social interaction trigger language acquisition: information collected from these sources constructs symbolic and functional schemata (thought or behaviour patterns). According to Piaget, cognitive development and language acquisition are life-long active processes that constantly update and re-organise schemata. He proposes children develop L1 as they build a sense of identity in reference to the environment, and describes phases of general cognitive development, with processes and patterns changing systematically with age. Piaget assumes language acquisition is part of this complex cognitive development, and that these developmental phases are the basis for an optimal period for language acquisition in childhood. Interactionist approaches derived from Piaget’s ideas supports his theory. Some studies (e.g. Newport and Supalla, 1987) show that, rather than abrupt changes in SLA ability after puberty, language ability declines with age, coinciding with declines in other cognitive abilities, thus supporting Piaget.

Several researchers, however, remain unconvinced that language acquisition is part of general development: Felix (1985) claims cognitive abilities alone are useless for language learning, as only vocabulary and meaning are connected to cognition; lexicology and related meanings have conceptual bases. Felix’ criticism of the assumption that L2 fluency simply requires skilful applications of the correct rules is supported by the lack of psychological empirical evidence for Piaget’s idea.

Although Krashen (1975) also criticises this theory, neither he nor Felix discredit the importance of age for second language acquisition. Krashen (1975), and later Felix (1985), proposed theories for the close of the CP for L2 at puberty, based on Piaget’s cognitive stage of formal operations beginning at puberty, as the ‘ability of the formal operational thinker to construct abstract hypotheses to explain phenomena’ inhibits the individual’s natural ability for language learning.

The term “language acquisition” became commonly used after Stephen Krashen contrasted it with formal and non-constructive “learning.” Today, most scholars use “language learning” and “language acquisition” interchangeably, unless they are directly addressing Krashen’s work. However, “second language acquisition” or “SLA” has become established as the preferred term for this academic discipline.

Though SLA is often viewed as part of applied linguistics, it is typically concerned with the language system and learning processes themselves, whereas applied linguistics may focus more on the experiences of the learner, particularly in the classroom. Additionally, SLA has mostly examined naturalistic acquisition, where learners acquire a language with little formal training or teaching.

Other directions of research

Impact of illiteracy

Virtually all research findings on SLA to date build on data from literate learners. Tarone, Bigelow and Hansen (2009) find significantly different results when replicating standard SLA studies with low literate L2 learners. Specifically, learners with lower alphabetic literacy levels are significantly less likely to notice corrective feedback on form or to perform elicited imitation tasks accurately. These findings are consistent with research in cognitive psychology showing significant differences in phonological awareness between literate and illiterate adults (Reis and Castro-Caldas 1997; Castro-Caldas et al. 1998). An important direction for SLA research must therefore involve the exploration of the impact of alphabetic literacy on cognitive processing in second language acquisition.

Empirical research has attempted to account for variables detailed by SLA theories and provide an insight into L2 learning processes, which can be applied in educational environments. Recent SLA investigations have followed two main directions: one focuses on pairings of L1 and L2 that render L2 acquisition particularly difficult, and the other investigates certain aspects of language that may be maturationally constrained. Flege, Mackay and Piske (2002) looked at bilingual dominance to evaluate two explanations of L2 performance differences between bilinguals and monolingual-L2 speakers, i.e. a maturationally defined CP or interlingual interference.

Bilingual dominance

Flege, Mackay and Piske investigated whether the age at which participants learned English affected dominance in Italian-English bilinguals, and found the early bilinguals were English (L2) dominant and the late bilinguals Italian (L1) dominant. Further analysis showed that dominant Italian bilinguals had detectable foreign accents when speaking English, but early bilinguals (English dominant) had no accents in either language. This suggests that, though interlingual interference effects are not inevitable, their emergence, and bilingual dominance, may be related to a CP.

Sebastián-Gallés, Echeverría and Bosch (2005) also studied bilinguals and highlight the importance of early language exposure. They looked at vocabulary processing and representation in Spanish-Catalan bilinguals exposed to both languages simultaneously from birth in comparison to those who had learned L2 later and were either Spanish- or Catalan-dominant. Findings showed ‘from birth bilinguals’ had significantly more difficulty distinguishing Catalan words from non-words differing in specific vowels than Catalan-dominants did (measured by reaction time).

These difficulties are attributed to a phase around age eight months where bilingual infants are insensitive to vowel contrasts, despite the language they hear most. This affects how words are later represented in their lexicons, highlighting this as a decisive period in language acquisition and showing that initial language exposure shapes linguistic processing for life. Sebastián-Gallés et al. (2005) also indicate the significance of phonology for L2 learning; they believe learning an L2 once the L1 phonology is already internalised can reduce individuals’ abilities to distinguish new sounds that appear in the L2.

Age effects on grammar learning

Most studies into age effects on specific aspects of SLA have focused on grammar, with the common conclusion that it is highly constrained by age, more so than semantic functioning. B. Harley (1986) compared attainment of French learners in early and late immersion programs. She reports that after 1000 exposure hours, late learners had better control of French verb systems and syntax. However, comparing early immersion students (average age 6.917 years) with age-matched native speakers identified common problem areas, including third person plurals and polite ‘vous’ forms. This suggests grammar (in L1 or L2) is generally acquired later, possibly because it requires abstract cognition and reasoning (B. Harley, 1986).

B. Harley also measured eventual attainment and found the two age groups made similar mistakes in syntax and lexical selection, often confusing French with the L1. The general conclusion from these investigations is that different aged learners acquire the various aspects of language with varying difficulty. Some variation in grammatical performance is attributed to maturation (discussed in B. Harley, 1986), however, all participants began immersion programs before puberty and so were too young for a strong critical period hypothesis to be directly tested.

This corresponds to Noam Chomsky’s UG theory, which states that while language acquisition principles are still active, it is easy to learn a language, and the principles developed through L1 acquisition are vital for learning an L2.

Scherag, Demuth, Rösler, Neville and Röder (2004) also suggest learning some syntactic processing functions and lexical access may be limited by maturation, whereas semantic functions are relatively unaffected by age. They studied the effect of late SLA on speech comprehension by German immigrants to the U.S.A. and American immigrants to Germany. They found that native-English speakers who learned German as adults were disadvantaged on certain grammatical tasks but performed at near-native levels on lexical tasks. These findings are consistent with work by Hahne (2001, cited in Scherag et al., 2004).

Semantic functions acquisition

One study that specifically mentions semantic functions acquisition is that of Weber-Fox and Neville (1996). Their results showed that Chinese-English bilinguals who had been exposed to English after puberty, learned vocabulary to a higher competence level than syntactic aspects of language. They do, however, report that the judgment accuracies in detecting semantic anomalies were altered in subjects who were exposed to English after sixteen years of age, but were affected to a lesser degree than were grammatical aspects of language. It has been speculated (Neville and Bavelier, 2001, and Scherag et al., 2004) that semantic aspects of language are founded on associative learning mechanisms, which allow life-long learning, whereas syntactical aspects are based on computational mechanisms, which can only be constructed during certain age periods. Consequently, it is reasoned, semantic functions are easier to access during comprehension of an L2 and therefore dominate the process: if these are ambiguous, understanding of syntactic information is not facilitated. These suppositions would help explain the results of Scherag et al.’s (2004) study.

Advantages of bilingual education for children

It is commonly believed that children are better suited to learn a second language than are adults. However, general second language research has failed to support the critical period hypothesis in its strong form (i.e., the claim that full language acquisition is impossible beyond a certain age). According to Linda M. Espinosa, especially in the United States the number of children growing up with a home language that is not English but Spanish is constantly increasing. Therefore these children have to learn the English language before kindergarten as a second language. It is better to dispose young children to maintain both, their home language and their second language. Cultivating his home language, the child creates his own cultural identity and becomes aware of his roots. This fact leads to the question whether having the ability to speak two languages helps or harms young children. Research shows that the acquisition of a second language in early childhood confers several advantages, especially a greater awareness of linguistic structures. Furthermore it is advantageous for young children to grow up bilingually because they do not need to be taught systematically but learn languages intuitively. How fast a child can learn a language depends on several personal factors, such as interest and motivation, and its learning environment. Communication should be facilitated rather than a child should be forced to learn a language with strict rules. Education in early childhood can lead to an effective educational achievement for children from various cultural environments.

Another aspect that is worth considering is that bilingual children are often doing code switching which does not mean that the child is not able to separate the languages. The reason for code switching is the child’s lack of vocabulary in a certain situation. The acquisition of a second language in early childhood broadens the children’s minds and enriches them more than it harms them. Thus they are not only able to speak two languages in spite of being very young but they also acquire knowledge about the different cultures and environments. It is possible that one language can dominate. This depends on how much time is spent on learning each language.

Evolutionary Explanations for the Critical Period in First and Second Language Acquisition

Hurford’s Model

In order to provide evidence for the evolutionary functionality of the critical period in language acquisition, Hurford (1991) generated a computer simulation of plausible conditions of evolving generations, based on three central assumptions:

• Language is an evolutionary adaptation that is naturally selected for.
• Any given individual’s language can be quantified or measured.
• Various aspects of maturation and development are under genetic control, which would extend to determine the timing for critical periods for certain capacities (i.e. polygenic inheritance).

According to Hurford’s evolutionary model, language acquisition is an adaptation that has survival value for humans, and that knowing a language correlated positively with an individual’s reproductive advantage. This finding is in line with views of other researchers such as Chomsky (1982) and Pinker & Bloom (1990). For example, Steven Pinker and Paul Bloom argue that due to the fact that language is a complex design that serves a specific function that cannot be replaced by any other existing capacity, the trait of language acquisition can be attributed to natural selection.

However, while arguing that language itself is adaptive and “did not ‘just happen’” (p.172), Hurford suggests that the critical period is not an adaptation, but rather a constraint on language that emerged due to a lack of selection pressures that reinforce acquiring more than one language. In other words, Hurford explains the existence of a critical period with genetic drift, the idea that when there are no selection pressures on multiple alleles acting on the same trait, one of the alleles will gradually diminish through evolution. Because the simulation reveals no evolutionary advantage of acquiring more than one language, Hurford suggests that the critical period evolved simply as a result of a lack of selection pressure.

Komarova and Nowak’s Dynamical System

Komarova and Nowak (2001) supported Hurford’s model, yet pointed out that it was limited in the sense that it did not take into account the costs of learning a language. Therefore, they created their own algorithmic model, with the following assumptions:

• Language ability correlates with an individual’s reproductive fitness
• The ability to learn language is inherited
• There are costs to learning a language

Their model consists of a population with constant size, where language ability is a predictor of reproductive fitness. The learning mechanism in their model is based on Chomsky’s (1980, 1993) language acquisition device (LAD) and the notion of universal grammar. The results of their model show that the critical period for language acquisition is an “evolutionarily stable strategy (ESS)” (Komarova & Nowak, 2001, p. 1190). They suggest that this ESS is due to two competing selection pressures. First, if the period for learning is short, language does not develop as well, and thus decreases the evolutionary fitness of the individual. Alternatively, if the period for learning language is long, it becomes too costly to the extent that it reduces reproductive opportunity for the individual, and therefore limits reproductive fitness. Therefore, the critical period is an adaptive mechanism that keeps these pressures at equilibrium, and aims at optimal reproductive success for the individual.

• Architecture and Design
• Asian and Pacific Studies
• Business and Economics
• Classical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies
• Computer Sciences
• Cultural Studies
• Engineering
• General Interest
• Geosciences
• Industrial Chemistry
• Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies
• Jewish Studies
• Library and Information Science, Book Studies
• Life Sciences
• Linguistics and Semiotics
• Literary Studies
• Materials Sciences
• Mathematics
• Social Sciences
• Sports and Recreation
• Theology and Religion
• Publish your article
• The role of authors
• Promoting your article
• Abstracting & indexing
• Publishing Ethics
• Why publish with De Gruyter
• How to publish with De Gruyter
• Our book series
• Our subject areas
• Your digital product at De Gruyter
• Contribute to our reference works
• Product information
• Tools & resources
• Product Information
• Promotional Materials
• Orders and Inquiries
• FAQ for Library Suppliers and Book Sellers
• Repository Policy
• Free access policy
• Open Access agreements
• Database portals
• For Authors
• Customer service
• People + Culture
• Journal Management
• How to join us
• Working at De Gruyter
• Mission & Vision
• De Gruyter Foundation
• De Gruyter Ebound
• Our Responsibility
• Partner publishers

Your purchase has been completed. Your documents are now available to view.

The Critical Period Hypothesis: A coat of many colours

• David Singleton

Research on age-related effects in L2 development often invokes the idea of a critical period – the postulation of which is customarily referred to as the Critical Period Hypothesis. This paper argues that to speak in terms of the Critical Period Hypothesis is misleading, since there is a vast amount of variation in the way in which the critical period for language acquisition is understood – affecting all the parameters deemed to be theoretically significant and indeed also relating to the ways in which the purported critical period is interpreted in terms of its implications for L2 instruction. The paper concludes that the very fact that there are such diverse and competing versions of the Critical Period Hypothesis of itself undermines its plausibility.

Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG

• X / Twitter

Supplementary Materials

Please login or register with De Gruyter to order this product.

Journal and Issue

Articles in the same issue.