help

Example student essay for LING6005 DO NOT COPY

1

What are the Advantages and Disadvantages of Learning a Second

Language as an Adult?

Introduction

Second language (henceforth L2) learning has received, and continues to receive,

considerable critical attention, as a result of its own complexities. A large part of

the aforementioned critical attention is devoted to the ‘Age of Acquisition’1

(henceforth AoA) of the learner and the way this advantages or disadvantages

them. Often, adults are seen as at a disadvantage, whereby Lenneberg’s seminal

work (1967) on the acquisition of a first language (henceforth L1), is

reconfigured to focus on the acquisition of an L2.2 His work argues that ‘language

acquisition must occur before the onset of puberty in order for language to fully

develop’ (Lenneberg, 1967 in Johnson & Newport, 1989, p.61) which is known as

the ‘critical period’ hypothesis.3 The essay will begin by examining the

emergence of this hypothesis and how it has manifested itself in different ways

since its realization, while critiquing it as a given. As such, it will consider ‘a

much more nuanced approach to native like attainment […] where quality and

quantity of linguistic input as well as language proficiency play bigger roles than

previously assumed, and where sensitive periods for some but not for other

modules of the grammar, and even for specific grammatical properties, can be

uncovered.’ (Birdsong, 2005; Donaldson, 2011, Flege, 2009; Montrul, 2009;

1 ‘The age at which a learner is exposed to a second language in a linguistically rich environment.’

(Slabakova, 2016, p.419). Any further references to ‘Age of Acquisition’ should at first instance be

attributed to this defintion unless otherwise stated. 2 See for example, Johnson and Newport, 1989. 3 Based on works by Penfield and Roberts, 1959 & Biologists such as Lorenz, 1978; Gray, 1978; Hubel

and Weisel; 1965. Further mentions of the ‘critical period’ (hypothesis) should at first instance be

attributed to Lenneberg (1967), unless otherwise stated.

Example student essay for LING6005 DO NOT COPY

2

Muñoz & Singleton, 2011; Rothman, 2008; Singleton, 2005; Slabakova, 2006,

2008; in Slabakova, 2016, p.86). In order to substantiate these different points of

view, the essay will take advantage of former quantitative studies that have been

designed in order to centralize or equally, decentralize the ‘critical period’

hypothesis as the principal disadvantage in adults’ learning of an L2.

Overview of CPH history

Firstly, it is important to bring the evolution of the critical period hypothesis in

L1 acquisition to the forefront. Lenneberg’s (1967) work on language acquisition

aimed to square with other biological phenomena. For example, Lenneberg’s

hypothesis can be seen as a manifestation of the work of biologists such as Hubel

and Wiesel (1965). In their study, they ‘patched the eye of a young kitten during

the period of hypothesized binocularity formation; the kitten – deprived of the

visual stimulation in one eye, was never able to gain depth perception.’ (Hubel &

Weisel, 1965 in Young-Scholten & Herschensohn, 2013, p.318). As such, they

suggested ‘if [a] process is interrupted, it may result in incomplete or failed

development of the organ in question.’ (Hubel & Weisel, 1965 in Young-Scholten

& Herschensohn, 2013, p.318). Lenneberg remodeled this to target L1

acquisition, in suggesting that if the process of language learning was not

complete ‘during a maturationally limited period’ (Johson & Newport, 1989, p.61),

then just like Hubel and Weisel’s (1965 in Young-Scholten & Herschensohn, 2013,

p.318 ) kitten’s depth perception, an L1 learner’s ability ‘to gain native speaker

competence as adults’ (Guasti, 2002; Meisel, 2008; Prévost, 2009 in Young-Scholten

& Herschensohn, 2013, p.317), as children do, would be impaired. Where the kitten

was denied ‘visual stimulation in one eye’ (Hubel & Weisel, 1965 in Young-

Example student essay for LING6005 DO NOT COPY

3

Scholten & Herschensohn, 2013, p.318), an L1 learner who is denied linguistic

stimulation, during the ‘critical period’, would be at a disadvantage too.4

The CPH in L2A

Now, it is pertinent to consider whether or not, there is a similar ‘critical period

hypothesis for L2 acquisition’ (Flege, Yeni-Komshian & Lui, 1999, p.100),

similarly to the one posited for an L1. If this were the case, then as a logical

extension, those learning an L2 as an adult would ultimately be at a disadvantage

to those learning one as a child. Many linguists would suggest this is the case,

whereby studies prove ‘AoA […] shows an inverse relationship with incidence

attainment in sampled populations’ (Young-Scholten & Herschensohn, 2013,

p.317). Furthermore, ‘increasing AoA roughly correlate[es] with decreasing

proficiency as measured, for example, by pronunciation accuracy (Scovel, 1988)

and grammatical accuracy (Johnson & Newport, 1989).’ (In Young-Scholten &

Herschensohn, 2013). However, the absoluteness of this ‘critical period’

(Slabakova, 2016, p.85) is often attested. Birdsong (1999) and Herschensohn

(2007) argue that there does seem to be evidence ‘of an advantage in language

acquisition in younger learners’ (in Young-Scholten & Herschensohn, 2013), yet,

‘it is not sufficient to establish explicit temporal limits for a biological period.’

(Birdsong, 1999 & Hersschensohn, 2007 in Young-Scholten & Herschensohn,

2013). As such, often the ‘critical period’ in L2 acquisition is defined instead as

‘sensitive periods’5, which insinuates ‘softer boundaries’ (Knudsen, 2004;

4 The case of Genie remains an influential example of such a hypothesis. (Slabakova, 2016, p.84,

footnote 2). 5 Further mentions of ‘senstive period/s’ should be attributed to authors, such as Knudsen, 2004;

Bialystock & Hakuta, 1999; Flege, 1999 in Young-Scholten & Herschensohn, 2013 unless otherwise

stated.

Example student essay for LING6005 DO NOT COPY

4

Bialystock & Hakuta, 1999; Flege, 1999 in Young-Scholten & Herschensohn,

2013) than the theory of a ‘critical period’. Also, it suggests an adult L2 learner,

may not be at quite a disadvantage that the absoluteness of a ‘critical period’

would suggest.

Sensitive, not critical periods

In order to look more closely at the idea of ‘sensitive periods’, it is important to

draw attention to the idea that some, but not all, areas of a language are affected

by these ‘sensitive periods’. For example, there is evidence to support ‘the view

that phonology is more susceptible to age effects than other linguistic domains’6

(Young-Scholten & Herschensohn, 2013, p.324), with Scovel (1988) claiming that

‘phonology but not syntax was susceptible to a critical period.’ (In Young-

Scholten & Herschensohn, 2013, p.322). He labels this distinction ‘in reference

to the Polish writer [:] the Joseph Conrad effect’. (Scovel, 1988 in Young-Scholten

& Herschensohn, 2013, p.322). In his study, which utilized ‘immigrants with a

range of AoAs [, he] found that native speakers’ perception of non-native

speakers phonology was far more accurate than their perception of non-native

morphosyntax.’ (Scovel, 1988 in Young-Scholten & Herschensohn, 2013, p.322).

Furthermore, ‘L2 learners with a higher AoAs were perceived as possessing a

less nativelike accent than those with lower AoAs.’ (Scovel, 1988 in Young-

Scholten & Herschensohn, 2013, p.322). Yet, this trend wasn’t mirrored in

reference to ‘morphosyntactic accuracy’ (Scovel, 1988 in Young-Scholten &

Herschensohn, 2013, p.322). As such, it is not just to assume as an adult an L2

6 Supported by studies such as the Barcelona Age Effect (BAF) (1995-2005), which Muñoz considers

(in Young-Scholten & Herschensohn, 2013, pp.323-4).

Example student essay for LING6005 DO NOT COPY

5

learner is disadvantaged with respect to all areas of language learning, yet, it

seems evident that in some areas, they may be.

Furthermore, Giannakopoulou, Uther and Ylinen (2013) carried out a study

whose results were further proof of a distinction between adults and children’s

acquisition of an L2’s phonology. Before we examine the study itself, it is vital to

ascertain the fact that the ‘learning of a second language (L2) speech sounds

typically involves the formation of new phonetic categories’ (Flege, 1995 in

Giannakopoulou, Uther and Ylinen, 2013, p.202) where ‘this acquisition of new

categories may involve changing the weighting of phonetic cues’ (for example

Holt & Lotto, 2006; Ylinen et al., 2010 in Giannakopoulou, Uther and Ylinen,

2013, p.202) of the ‘speaker’s native language (L1)’ (for example, Holt & Lotto,

2006; Ylinen et al., 2010 in Giannakopoulou, Uther and Ylinen, 2013, p.202) .

From a very elementary point of view, the researchers endeavored to do this in

using, ‘“high-variability phonetic training” (HPVT)’ (Logan et al., 1991; Pisoni et

al. 1994, in Giannakopoulou, Uther and Ylinen, 2013, p.202) on a group of ‘Greek

adult (20-30 years) and child (7-8 years) groups’ (Giannakopoulou, Uther and

Ylinen, 2013, p.201) who were learning English as an L2. Not only did the results

show the benefit of HPVT, but more importantly the fact that ‘the degree of

improvement was most pronounced for children.’ (Giannakopoulou, Uther and

Ylinen, 2013, p.201). As such, the researchers attribute this improvement to

‘enhanced plasticity for spoken language in this developmental stage.’

(Giannakopoulou, Uther and Ylinen, 2013, p.201). From this, the conclusion

from a similar phonetic study seems apt that ‘the A[o]A effect on phonology may

have been due to a sensitive period arising from brain maturation.’ (Flege, Yeni-

Example student essay for LING6005 DO NOT COPY

6

Komshian & Lui, 1999, p.100). This line of thought, further positions an adult

learner at a disadvantage in comparison to a child, due to their later stages of

brain maturation.

However, there is also evidence that suggests the contrary. It is apt to again

return to Lenneberg’s ‘critical period’ hypothesis (1967) in L1 acquisition and

his justification of it in that ‘the brain, having reached its adult values by

puberty, has lost the plasticity and reorganizational capacities necessary for

acquiring language’ (Lenneberg, 1967 in Johnson & Newport, 1989, p.62), which

we have shown has important manifestations in acquiring an L2, too. It is

important to highlight, however, that this view is only complicit with the ‘critical

period’ hypothesis. It would seem that language phenomena such as language

attrition would, again, support the aforementioned ideas of ‘sensitive periods’, in

contrast. For example in Pallier’s (et al., 2004 in Pallier, 2007) study of subjects

who ‘were all born in Korea and came to France when they were between 3 and

10 years old [,] they all claim to have completely forgotten Korean’. This latter

proclamation being supported ‘brain imaging data and behavioural data’ (Pallier,

2007). Although, the subjects are still pre-pubescent7, it ‘would constitute strong

evidence against versions of the CPH that state that some “neural connections”

become fixed in the early years of life, as a result of learning and/or because of

maturational factors.’ (Penfield, 1965 in Pallier, 2007). As such, as a logical extension

of the critical period hypothesis, an adult L2 language learner would be victim to an

irreversible biological disadvantage; yet, the malleability of this hypothesis proves

otherwise. In other words, Hensch (for example, 2004) suggests that ‘language

7 See Slabakova, 2016, p.142 where she discusses varying definitions of adult L2 learner’s age.

Example student essay for LING6005 DO NOT COPY

7

development may have a sensitive period, after which some impairment normally

occurs, but problems can be compensated for and reversed.’ (In Slabakova, 2016,

p.84).

Explicit and Implicit learning

Another factor that complicates the idea of a ‘critical period’ (and the supposed

disadvantages this causes to an adult learner of an L2) is the distinction between

‘implicit’ and ‘explicit’ learning. Hulstijn (2005) defines the difference as follows:

‘explicit learning is input processing with the conscious intention to find out whether

the input information contains regularities [where] implicit learning is input

processing without such an intention, taking place unconsciously.’8 (p.131). For

Lenneberg (1967), his ‘critical period’ hypothesis suggests that ‘what disappears

around puberty is the ability to attain “automatic acquisition from mere exposure”’

As such, an adult L2 learner can no longer benefit from ‘implicit’ learning (p.176 in

Slabakova, 2016, p.87) (‘mere exposure’), yet, only from ‘“a conscious and labored

effort.’” (Lenneberg, 1967 in Slabakova, 2016, p.87). However, it is important here to

consider the ‘Poverty of the Stimulus learning situation’ (Slabakova, 2016, pp.89-90)

which engenders ‘learning situations in which knowledge of the unavailability of

some form or some interpretation cannot be obtained based on positive evidence in

the input’ (Slabakova, 2016, p.423), i.e. in ‘explicit learning’. It seems that such a

situation is evidence that can refute the idea that an adult learner can no longer obtain

‘implicit […] linguistic knowledge’ (Slabakova, 2016, p.87).

8 Further mentions of’ implicit’ and ‘explicit’ learning/linguistic knowledge should be referenced to

this definition, unless otherwise stated.

Example student essay for LING6005 DO NOT COPY

8

Montrul and Slabakova (2003) quantitatively proved this in their study where they

‘set out to test whether very advanced learners of Spanish with English as their native

language had nativelike intuitions on the meaning of the aspectual tenses’ (in

Slabakova, 2016, p.89) It was important that they focused on ‘aspectual tenses’

(Montrul & Slabakova, 2003 in Slabakova, 2016, p.89) as ‘instruction of such

meaning subtleties is quite unlikely to be offered in many language classrooms.’

(Montrul & Slabakova, 2003 in Slabakova, 2016, p.89). As such, if the L2 Spanish

speakers were successful in ascertaining the differences, it would suggest they were

able to utilize ‘implicit […] linguistic knowledge’ (Slabakova, 2016, p.87) and would

not only prove the ‘Poverty of the Stimulus’ (Slabakova, 2016, pp.89-90) situation,

but furthermore, the results would be ‘in direct contradiction to a strict critical period

claim.’ (Slabakova, 2016, p.90). The results were in fact harmonious with this

declaration, with ‘22 out of a total pool of 64 participants […] perform[ing] within the

range of native speakers on a truth value judgment task’ (Montrul & Slabakova, 2003

in Slabakova, 2016, p.89). Therefore, we can deduce that adult L2 learners are not

necessarily at a disadvantage to child learners when it comes to their ability to use

‘implicit […] linguistic knowledge’ (Slabakova, 2016, p.87) in the acquisition of

language.

Advantages of adult L2 learners

In fact, from a different point of view an adult L2 learner can be seen at an advantage

to a child learner. Although having just seen the ability of an adult L2 learner to

utilize both ‘implicit’ and ‘explicit’ forms of linguistic knowledge, Paradis (2009)

suggests that ‘an obvious shift in cognitive functions of the maturing individual

includes a reduction of implicit learning and an increase of explicit learning with age’

Example student essay for LING6005 DO NOT COPY

9

(in Young-Scholten & Herschensohn, 2013, p.321). However, from an ‘Emergentist

perspective’ (Mitchell, Myles & Marsden, 2013, p.99), this ‘increase of explicit

learning’ (Paradis, 2009 in Young-Scholten & Herschensohn, 2013, p.321) squares

with the way in which a language is acquired. This aforementioned perspective argues

that ‘learners use general learning mechanisms in order to extract structure and

patterns from the language input they are exposed to [rather than these rules] being

innate, or learned as abstract structures.’ (Mitchell, Myles & Marsden, 2013, p.99). As

such, an L2 adult learner who has been positioned as relying more on ‘explicit

learning’, has an advantage over the L2 child learner, from this ‘Emergentist’

(Mitchell, Myles & Marsden, 2013, p.99) perspective. This is further supported by

Schmidt (1990, 1993, 1995; Schmidt & Frota, 1986 in Robinson, 1997, p.46) who

suggests that ‘conscious noticing of the form of input is necessary to subsequent

second language (L2) development and that consciousness at the level of rule

awareness strongly facilitates subsequent learning.’ From this ‘Emergentist’

(Mitchell, Myles & Marsden, 2013, p.99) point of view then, AoA is not necessarily

an indication of regressive performance, but in fact, the different learning style

attributed to L2 adult learners can be seen as ultimately advantageous, in that they can

‘take advantage of an instructional setting to bootstrap the L2.’ (Young-Scholten &

Herschensohn, 2013, p.326).

Having looked at the implications of the ‘critical period’ hypothesis on L2 adult

acquisition, it is now important to consider other factors that may advantage or

disadvantage the acquisition process for an adult learner. Muñoz’s 2014 study reveals

‘the relative effects of input exposure and starting age on foreign language

acquisition.’ (in Slabakova, 2016, pp.96-7). The study ‘analyzed the oral performance

Example student essay for LING6005 DO NOT COPY

10

of 160 English learners of English in Spain and related it to various input measures

[such as] number of years of instruction, number of hours of curricular and extra

curricular lessons [etc].’ (Muñoz, 2014 in Slabakova, 2016,p.97). The results

decentralized the idea that the critical period is omnipotent, in its findings that ‘input

has a stronger association with measures of oral performance than age of acquisition.’

(Muñoz, 2014 in Slabakova, 2016, p.97). As such, it suggests L2 adult learners are

not necessarily at a disadvantage to L2 child learners, and other factors could pay a

larger role than the ‘critical period’ hypothesis implies.

Heritage language speakers

Finally, ‘heritage learners’ may also substantiate the importance of ‘input’ (Muñoz,

2014 in Slabakova, 2016, pp.96-7), over age in language acquisition. By definition,

‘heritage learners’ are speakers of a ‘heritage language’, that is to say, ‘the native

language of infants, young children, or adolescents who are exposed to a majority

language as a second language, usually in immigration.’9 (Slabakova, 2016, p.421). In

Montrul’s 2009 study, she ‘compar[ed] 70 post puberty L2 learners and 67 adult

heritage speakers in different areas of Spanish morphology and syntax.’ (in

Slabakova, 2016, p.97). Her results showed ‘both comparable error patterns [yet, also]

advantages for the early bilinguals in some areas’ (Montrul, 2009 in Slabakova, 2016,

p.97). Although the latter would seem to support the idea that AoA of an L2 learner is

significant and skewed positively towards those with an earlier AoA, the fact that

there is ‘comparable error patterns’ (Montrul, 2009 in Slabakova, 2016, p.97) would

substantiate the importance of ‘input’ (Muñoz, 2014 in Slabakova, 2016, pp.96-7),

too. If AoA were the ‘most important factor for nativelike linguistic performance’

9 Further mentions of ‘heritage language/speakers’ should be referenced to this definition, unless

otherwise stated.

Example student essay for LING6005 DO NOT COPY

11

(Slabakova, 2016, p.97) then it would be assumed that the ‘heritage speaker’ would

speak the language with similar proficiency to a Spanish native speaker. However,

this is not the case, and the conclusions of Montrul (2009 in Slabakova, 2016, pp.97-

8) highlight input as the differentiating factor between heritage and native speakers,

where the latter ‘have maintained constant usage (respective and productive) of that

language.’ (Slabakova, 2016, pp.97-8). Therefore, it seems that ‘quantity of linguistic

input’ (Birdsong, 2005; Donaldson, 2011, Flege, 2009; Montrul, 2009; Muñoz &

Singleton, 2011; Rothman, 2008; Singleton, 2005; Slabakova, 2006, 2008; in

Slabakova, 2016, p.86) is an important factor in language acquisition. An L2 adult

learner is not wholly at a disadvantage to L2 child learners as a result of their

respective ages, and it is just as vital to consider other acquisition factors, equally.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the essay aimed to consider the advantages and disadvantages of

learning a second language as an adult. Although, the ‘critical period’ hypothesis does

seem to have pejorative implications for an L2 adult learner, framing it instead as

‘sensitive periods’ offers them reprieve from the inability to reach ‘native speaker

competence as adults’ (Guasti, 2002; Meisel, 2008; Prévost, 2009 in Young-Scholten

& Herschensohn, 2013, p.317). This was highlighted in the fact that some parts of

language were affected by these sensitive periods while others were not. From this,

‘brain plasticity’ (Lenneberg, 1967 in Johnson & Newport, 1989, p.62) was

considered as a biological cause for the ‘sensitive periods’ yet Hensch (for example,

2004) argued that these ‘problems can be reversed and compensated for.’ (In

Slabakova, 2016, p.84). Where increasing AoA is seen as a disadvantage for an L2

adult learner, positive evidence is offered in favour of their learning. For example,

Example student essay for LING6005 DO NOT COPY

12

from an ‘Emergentist’ (Mitchell, Myles & Marsden, 2013, p.99) point of view, an L2

adult learner’s reliance on ‘explicit knowledge’ ultimately benefits them (Mitchell,

Myles & Marsden, 2013, p.99). Finally, the discussion flirted with the idea that AoA

may not be the overriding factor in determining success in second language

acquisition; yet, ‘quality of input’ (Birdsong, 2005; Donaldson, 2011, Flege, 2009;

Montrul, 2009; Muñoz & Singleton, 2011; Rothman, 2008; Singleton, 2005;

Slabakova, 2006, 2008; in Slabakova, 2016, p.86) also plays a key role, with

‘heritage speakers’ being proof of this. From this line of thought, L2 adult learners are

at no more of an advantage/disadvantage than their younger counterparts. Further

work would be beneficial in exploring in more detail the role of linguistic ‘input’

(Birdsong, 2005; Donaldson, 2011, Flege, 2009; Montrul, 2009; Muñoz &

Singleton, 2011; Rothman, 2008; Singleton, 2005; Slabakova, 2006, 2008; in

Slabakova, 2016, p.86); yet, the conclusions that have already been drawn are

fruitful, nonetheless.

Example student essay for LING6005 DO NOT COPY

13

Reference List, Bibliography and Word Count: Reference List: Flege, J. E., Yeni-Komshian, G. H. & Lui, S., 1999. Age Constraints on Second-

Language Acquisition. Journal of Memory and Language [online] 41, 78-104.

Available at: http://www.jimflege.com/files/Flege_Yeni-

Komshian_age_constraints_JML_1999.pdf [date first accessed: 10/01/17].

Giannakopoulou, A., Uther, M. & Ylinen, S., 2013. Enhanced plasticity in spoken

language acquisition for child learners: Evidence from phonetic training studies in

child and adult learners of English. Child Language and Learning Therapy [online]

29 (2), 201-218. Available at:

http://eds.a.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=2&sid=7db94369-39ae-

44f1-ab62-fa959175f0b8%40sessionmgr4007&hid=4105 [date first accessed:

10/01/17].

Hulstijn, J. H., 2005. Theoretical and Empirical Study of Implicit and Explicit

Second-Language Learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition [online] 27,

129-140. Available at: https://pure.uva.nl/ws/files/3930890/56455_275212.pdf [date

first accessed: 12/01/17].

Johnson, J. S. & Newport, E. L., 1989. Critical Period Effects in Second Language

Learning: The Influence of Maturational State on the Acquisition of English as a

Second Language. Cognitive Psychology [online] 21, pp.60-99. Available at:

http://www.cog.brown.edu/courses/cg2000/papers/cg195johnson_newportcogpsy89.p

df [Accessed: 10/01/17].

Mitchell, R., Myles, F. & Marsden, E., 2013. Second Language Learning Theories.

[e-book]. Routledge. Available at:

http://lib.myilibrary.com/Open.aspx?id=512579&src=0 [date first accessed:

12/01/17].

Pallier, C., 2007. Critical Periods in Language Acquisition and Language Attrition.

In: Kopke, B., Schmid, Monika, S., Keijzer, M., Dostert, S., ed. Language Attrition:

Theoretical Perspectives. [e-book]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing, pp.155-

168. Available at:

Example student essay for LING6005 DO NOT COPY

14

http://www.pallier.org/papers/Pallier.critical.period.attrition.chapter.2007.pdf [date

first accessed: 15/01/17].

Robinson, P., 1997. Individual Differences and the Fundamental Similarity of Implicit

and Explicit Adult Second Language Learning. Language Learning [online] 47 (1),

45-99. Available at:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Peter_Robinson13/publication/229795959_Indiv

idual_Differences_and_the_Fundamental_Similarity_of_Implicit_and_Explicit_Adult

_Second_Language_Learning/links/0f31752e1e2f08a782000000.pdf [date first

accessed: 10/01/17].

Slabakova, R., 2016. Second Language Acquisition. USA : Oxford University Press.

Young-Scholton, M. & Herschensohn, J. R., 2013. The Cambridge Handbook of

Second Language Acquisition. [e-book]. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Available at:

http://eds.b.ebscohost.com/eds/ebookviewer/ebook/bmxlYmtfXzU0NDk5Ml9fQU41?

sid=81308c62-5d0f-4c03-881b-

c1e38c7fbd51@sessionmgr101&vid=0&format=EB&rid=1 [date first accessed:

10/01/17].

Bibliography

Dekyser, R. M., 2000. The Robustness of Critical Period Effects in Second Language

Acquisition. SSLA [online] 22, pp.499-533. Available at:

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.198.8160&rep=rep1&type

=pdf [date first accessed: 10/01/17].

Krashen, S. D., 1981. Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning.

Second Language Learning [online]. Available at:

http://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/35238869/second_languge_acquis

ition_and_learning.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJ56TQJRTWSMTNPEA&Expires

=1484510014&Signature=3j1c0R41kYw9RUFDl6cVcG4FhxQ%3D&response-

content-

disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DSecond_Language_Acquisition_and_Second

_L.pdf [date fist accessed: 10/01/17].

Mclaughin, B., 1992. Myths and Misconceptions about Second Language Learning:

What Every Teacher Needs to Unlearn. Educational Practice Report 5. National

Center for Research on Cultural Diversity and Second Language Learning [online].

Available at: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED352806.pdf [date first accessed:

10/01/17].

Rubin, J., 1975. What the “Good Language Learner” Can Teach Us. Tesol Quarterly

[online] 9 (1), pp.41-51. Available at:

http://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/36454518/What_the_Good_Lang

uage_Learner_Can_Teach_Us.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJ56TQJRTWSMTNPE

A&Expires=1484509463&Signature=OVdqR5umB5AFW2NA2%2F0iyQwzRqs%3

D&response-content-

Example student essay for LING6005 DO NOT COPY

15

disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DWhat_the_good_language_learner_can_teac

h.pdf [date first accessed: 10/01/17].

Schmid, Monika S & Köpke, B., 2004. First Language Attrition. [e-book].

Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. Available at:

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=zaNKFDuCmC0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=fir

st+language+attrition&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=first%20language

%20attrition&f=false [date first accessed: 15/01/17].

Word Count (Without Headers, Title, In-text References, General Footnotes or

Footers): 2511

Example student essay for LING6005 DO NOT COPY

16