maturational constraints in language one and language … · when and in what proportion to...

319A Second Look at Research on Critical Periods

Maturational Constraints in Language One andLanguage Two: A Second Look at the Research on

Critical Periods

Norbert FrancisNorthern Arizona University

Abstract

Research on first language acquisition in young children and secondlanguage learning in older children and adults has examined thepossible role played by maturational constraints (related to thenotion of a critical period for language acquisition). The followingarticle reviews findings from investigations that studied the specialcircumstances of delayed first language learning and the effect ofage on second language learning. Findings suggest that: (a) theobserved phenomenon of a critical period in language developmentmerits further study, and (b) the ability to attain native-speakergrammatical competence may actually begin to diminish earlierthan puberty. The discussion of the current research presentsbilingual educators with a new framework from which to reconsidera number of pedagogical issues and recent controversies regardingschool language policy.

IntroductionThe following review and discussion of the literature will propose a focus

for future research in an area of the study of bilingualism that has recentlyreceived relatively little attention: maturational constraints on first language(L1) acquisition and second language (L2) learning. Also referred to as critical(or sensitive) periods, the discussion of maturational factors has most oftenbeen associated with theories of child language development that haveemerged from the Universal Grammar/Transformational-generative school (UGfor short). Indeed, in recent years within the field of bilingual education, UGapproaches seem to have largely fallen into disfavor or have come to beviewed as not pertinent to the problems of dual language teaching. A surveyof the current teacher preparation literature reflects this apparent trend; textsoften make limited reference to concepts and findings explained by UGinvestigators (on occasion strongly qualified to distance the author’sinterpretation of the findings from the theory in general), make no reference toUG hypotheses, or explicitly challenge them (see Lessow-Hurley, 2000; Faltis,2001; Genesee, 1994; Hernández, 1997; Pérez-Torres & Guzmán, 1996; Cummins,1996; DeGaetano et al., 1998; Durkin, 1995; Piper, 1998). Clearly, the presentstage of inquiry and investigation does not warrant a convergence aroundany of the competing theories, and researchers working within one or anotherUG framework would be the first to warn against any far-reaching pedagogical

320 Bilingual Research Journal, 23:4 Fall 1999

applications of their findings, which by and large remain restricted to theoreticaldomains. One domain of the study of language development, however, doesappear to hold out great promise: resolution of the key research questionsrelated to critical periods in L1, and optimal age for second-language learningwill decisively inform a series of current language policy and language-teachingdebates.

For now, a discussion of these questions among bilingual educators willhelp place the debates into a broader perspective, the primary immediatebenefit being a more reflective assessment of the different claims (especiallythe strong claims) regarding:

1. When and in what proportion to introduce content-area L2 instruction;

2. The rate at which bilingual students can be expected to reach the successive milestones of L2 development;

3. The rationale for L1 literacy development; and

4. Communicatively based versus form-focused teaching.

The Language-Specific Faculty: Triggering and LearningA summary overview of background concepts relevant to critical period

research will serve to set the stage for evaluating the findings. However, twodistinct alternatives to the above proposed framework are logically possible:

1. The UG hypotheses are incorrect or deficient in regard to one or anothersignificant aspect of language development related to the questions athand. For example, the apparent phenomenon of the critical period maynot be related to any kind of maturational constraint, and can be accountedfor completely by reference to social or other purely external factors;

2. Maturational (i.e., internal) factors of some sort do make an importantcontribution, but can be explained without any recourse to the notionof a language-specific mental faculty (a fundamental assumption ofall varieties of UG theory).

These two alternative hypotheses should be kept in mind throughout thediscussion if for no other reason than to help us evaluate the claims putforward, specifically by considering how they might be shown to be false.

To reiterate, it is the notion of a language-specific module or array ofinteracting language modules (related to alternative #2 above) that lies at thecore of the model that we will examine. On the one hand, it is a commonobservation that young children construct the complex grammatical systemof their primary language without any systematic training or explicit instruction.This kind of non-analytic and unconscious process seems to be confirmed byobserved patterns of language use that vary widely from one culture to another,for example, in regard to the discourse style often described as “motherese,”in which caretakers from certain socioeconomic groups and cultures attemptto modify language structures in child/adult interaction to increase


comprehensibility and thus, hypothetically, foster language acquisition.On the other hand, “motherese” type modifications have not been observedin the socialization patterns of other cultures. Nevertheless, L1 acquisitionproceeds at a remarkably uniform rate, regardless of these differences(Pinker, 1990).

More importantly, the highly complex and opaque nature of the rulesystems that govern the child’s developing grammar could not emerge fromany kind of experience alone (systematic teaching or otherwise). Theknowledge that underlies the structures of language that have developed byage six is simply too abstract to have been constructed from the application ofgeneral learning strategies, such as comparing and contrasting different kindsof examples (e.g., correct and incorrect), generalization, analogy, etc. The vastand elaborate knowledge of grammar that develops so uniformly anduniversally in preschool children requires no conscious reflection, explicit orindirect correction, or exposure to negative evidence. From positive evidencealone, which in addition is often incomplete, not relevant, or confusing (not allinput provides correct examples of positive evidence), grammatical knowledgeis built up. By six or seven years of age children command the basic structuresof their primary language at a level that clearly and unambiguouslydifferentiates them from all but the most successful second language learnersof the language; this is what is referred to as “native-speaker grammaticalcompetence.” In the case of adults, for example, the application of generallearning mechanisms such as inductive (problem solving) approaches do notguarantee uniform success in language learning; these general learningstrategies applied by the cognitively immature child would be even lessadequate for the task.

Thus, linguists propose that a language-specific faculty or module that ispre-experiential, innate, and genetically programmed places at the disposal ofthe child an elaborate conceptual framework of prior knowledge that assignsstructure to linguistic input and builds the complex cognitive network whichquickly develops into a complete knowledge system corresponding to thebasic grammar of the child’s mother tongue (Chomsky, 1988). In this sense,language proficiency is modular; some aspects such as the “core grammar”depend on the language-specific faculty and are universally acquired by allnormal children, who in turn come to acquire them completely. Other aspectsrelated, for example, to academic discourse and literacy may depend upon amore complex interaction among different cognitive domains outside of thelanguage-specific faculty, including cognitive domains that correspond togeneral learning mechanisms. [See Maratsos (1992) on modularity in general,and Pinker (1996) on “modules of language” in relation to child languagedevelopment.] Thus, “language proficiency” is a broader concept referringalso to abilities that are learned, to using language for different purposes;some are “cognitively undemanding,” as in skillful (e.g., socially appropriate),informal conversation in one’s primary language, while others require the


participation of more complex abilities and different kinds of knowledgestructures. Precisely, it is this kind of mental heterogeneity, orcompartmentalization, that can account for the specialized nature of first-language acquisition and can explain certain features of the acquisition processthat are not shared by other aspects of cognitive development, universalityand completeness being among the most noteworthy.1 [See Lenneberg (1964)for an early discussion of criteria for innately given competencies that can beapplied to language.]

Chomsky (1988) offers the analogy of a kind of circuit board in which thebasic design is predetermined, but has the switches left “open” (representingthe general principles of Universal Grammar, which for some authors issynonymous with Language Acquisition Device). This system ofpredetermined knowledge is available to all children prior to any contact withlinguistic input. Thus, the circuit of “switches” requires limited positiveevidence alone to be thrown toward one set of positions or another, i.e.,toward one set of values of the parameters of UG or another:

The principles of universal grammar have certain parameters, whichcan be fixed by experience in one or another way. We may think of thelanguage faculty as a complex and intricate network of some sortassociated with a switch box consisting of an array of switches thatcan be in one of two positions. Unless the switches are set one wayor another, the system does not function. When they are set in one ofthe permissible ways, then the system functions in accordance withits nature, but differently, depending on how the switches are set. Thefixed network is the system of principles of universal grammar; theswitches are the parameters to be fixed by experience. Each permissiblearray of settings determines a particular language. Acquisition of alanguage is in part a process of setting the switches one way oranother on the basis of presented data, a process of fixing the valuesof the parameters. (Chomsky, 1988, pp. 62–63)

From this perspective, then, to say that children “learn” their first languageis misleading in some important respects. Rather, that part of grammaticalknowledge that linguists term “core grammar” is triggered. In more technicalterms, a series of specific parameter values are set. Thus, first languageacquisition is, to a large extent, a process of choosing among options thathave been genetically predetermined.2

Adults and Children: The Fundamental Difference HypothesisOur examination of the evidence will begin with a review of the research

involving adult second-language learners. The availability of large numbersof international students studying in universities and colleges where Englishis the language of instruction has provided researchers with an important


opportunity to examine the question of how second-language learning maybe different from first-language acquisition.

More importantly, beginning with adults, the contrast with young childrenwould be more evident. If the notion of a critical period is worth pursing at all,establishing a qualitative difference between the two most contrasting caseswould be a good place to start. Presumably, if the capacity to acquire native-like grammatical competence begins to diminish at some point (necessarily, aswe have shown in the previous section, after early childhood) adults wouldbe good candidates for examining the extent of this diminution. In fact, thefirst hypotheses regarding a critical period estimated that puberty marked thepoint after which achieving complete native-speaker grammatical competencebegins to elude the language learner (Lenneberg, 1967). On the other hand, ifit could be demonstrated that the basic processes were the same in every wayfor the four and five year old acquiring his/her L1 and the 20-year-old ESLstudent, the inquiry would effectively end there.

Therefore, the first research question to be posed is, do adult second-language learners continue to have complete and unfettered access toUniversal Grammar? Bley-Vroman (1989) reviews the evidence that suggeststhat adults can no longer avail themselves of the language-specific faculty,that L2 learning resembles general problem solving rather than the automatictype of parameter-setting process that is hypothesized in UG-driven L1acquisition. In support of this distinction, the Fundamental DifferenceHypothesis (FDH) calls attention to the following contrasts:

1. While native-speaker grammatical competence is achieved universallyand completely in L1, the variation among adults who have the sameamount of contact and opportunities for language use in the L2, is farranging. A number of adult learners achieve near-native fluency or levelsthat make it difficult to distinguish them from native speakers. However,the vast majority, it seems, falls far short. Among a significant numberinterlanguage development stabilizes at such an incipient level that itwould be difficult to suppose that anything remotely analogous to thechild’s free and unobstructed access to UG was also operating in theadult. It is important here to clarify what is the criterion for evidence inthis case: access to UG does not necessarily follow from demonstratedcases of successful L2 learning. No normally developing child would bejudged by another native speaker of the same L1 as not also belonging tothe category of native speakers. This distinction is even possible at stagesof child language development far short of complete acquisition of thebasic structures;

2. Related to #1, the phenomenon of fossilization is widely observed amongadult L2 learners and does not even apply to children’s L1 development;


3. Adults’ fluency (or rather, accuracy in production) in L2 tends to varyby domain, topic, extralinguistic background information, etc. Childrenmay vary in their command of discourse abilities according to the abovecircumstances, but in all contexts they sound like native speakers even ifcoherence or text-level organization, for example, is completely lacking;

4. Schachter (1988) also calls attention to an aspect of L1 acquisitionthatshe terms “equipotentiality.” All first languages develop atapproximately the same rate and follow the same developmentalmilestones (i.e., none are more difficult than any other). On the otherhand, for adults, depending on the learner’s L1, a typologically relatedL2 will be easier to learn than one that is genetically distant. Dependingon the circumstances, the factor of structural closeness or distance canbe decisive, accounting for the difference between relative success andcomplete failure and frustration.

Bley-Vroman concludes that for the adult, general problem solvingprinciples take the place of (or compensate for the erosion of) access to thelanguage-specific module available to the young child, and that knowledge ofthe first language grammar fills the role which Universal Grammar plays in theacquisition of the primary language. Second language learners construct akind of “UG-surrogate” which can only assure an approximation to native-level linguistic competence.3

Returning to the triggering-learning distinction, Schachter (1996) pointsout that the latter is characterized by procedures such as induction, throughwhich knowledge is constructed more directly from the input; relevant priorknowledge supplies useful top-down organizing schemata, but the constraints(if they can be called that) are of a more general and open kind. With triggering,relevant prior knowledge allows the child to “select” from possible optionsthe correct one. In this sense first language development proceeds by way ofa kind of deduction. The triggering/deductive model assures completenessand universality—learning/inductive methods cannot assure either—although, depending on the circumstances, the L2 learner can approximatevery closely, and perhaps even achieve, virtual completeness. Universality,however, would be excluded.

Delayed First-Language LearningAt this point, a review of the research conducted on late first language

learning will offer another perspective on how certain aspects of languagedevelopment are “biologically scheduled.” The studies that are available arefew given the highly abnormal circumstances in which these phenomena canbe observed. One of the most reliable reports seems to be that of “Genie,” thenow well-known test case of first-language learning after puberty. As is typicalof other such examples of pathologic L1 development, upon being liberatedfrom total linguistic isolation at age 13 1/2, language learning proceeded at anaccelerated rate, but development stabilized at a level far short of native-like


competence. Suggestively similar to L2 learning, vocabulary knowledgeshowed greater development than morphology and syntax, with a wider gapseparating receptive and expressive abilities as compared to native speakers(Long, 1990).4

While the evidence from case studies of modern feral children is entirelyconsistent with the notion of critical periods, drawing definitive conclusionsis difficult. Aside from the limited number, it is impossible to separate out thegeneral cognitive/emotional consequences of such extreme cases of childabuse. Keeping this admonition in mind, one may refer to the case reported inHurford (1991) of a boy treated for severe combined immunodeficiency disease,after living in isolation from 9 months old to 4 years and 4 months old, whosubsequently demonstrated near normal language development.

Age and Second-Language LearningConsidering what appears to be a fundamental difference between child

L1 development and adult L2 learning, Lenneberg’s demarcation of pubertyas the maturational threshold seemed very plausible. However, a more complexresearch question is now posed: do children learning a second languagebenefit from free and unencumbered access to the Language AcquisitionDevice in a way that older, post-pubescent learners presumably cannot? Thereader will take special note of how this question is different from the problemposed by Bley-Vroman, a distinction that is often left unspecified in the currentdiscussion of critical periods. Here the key contrast is between two categoriesof L2 learners, not L1 versus L2.

At first glance the findings from research appear to be quite unfavorableto the idea of maturational constraints. Long’s (1990) comprehensive reviewof the literature uncovers some contradictory evidence, but on the questionof rate of L2 development, the majority of studies actually show an advantagefor both older children and adults. That is, under controlled conditions, olderstudents tend to attain mastery of one or another structural aspect of thetarget language more rapidly than younger students. However, according toLong, on the question of ultimate attainment the tables are turned; “youngerstarters” usually outperform older ones, given the opportunity (time) to“catch up.” In studies of phonology for example, the beginning of a declinein the ability to master the sound system among immigrants is placed asearly as age six.

In a study focused on syntactic knowledge in which age of arrival to theUnited States varied from childhood to adulthood, with minimum Length ofResidence (LOR) of five years, the younger group, average Age of Onset(AO) of 8.6 years, performed better than immigrants arriving after 15, averageAO of 27.1 (Patkowski, 1980). Significantly, younger subjects apparentlyrevealed some non-native features during interviews in comparison to native-speaker (NS) controls who received “perfect scores” (an indication,parenthetically, that both interview items and NS control subjects were


adequately selected). Long interprets the findings for rate and ultimateattainment as representing a short-term advantage for older learners. Inreference to the puberty threshold, the results suggest rather a series ofsensitive periods for second language—not just one—the first perhapsculminating around age six.

Bialystok and Hakuta (1994) urge caution regarding methodologicalconsiderations, specifically the interaction between LOR and AO and otherintervening factors. Future research will need to control for actual length oftime learning the L2 (an advantage conferred upon subjects with a early AO),cognitive maturity and test-wiseness of older subjects, and first-languagebackground (typological closeness, level of prior higher order discourseabilities that tend to favor mastery of linguistic features, etc.).5

To sum up so far: the Fundamental Difference Hypothesis (Bley-Vroman,1989; Schachter, 1996) distinguishes between normal L1 acquisition (that mustcoincide with early childhood) and adult L2 learning, focusing on two distinctprocesses at work—complete access to UG, and application of general learningstrategies, respectively. Studies focused on L2 learners of different agessuggest some advantages for older learners (if the advantages do turn out tobe temporary, the phenomenon still merits explanation) with long-term, ultimateattainment favored by age of initial contact with the L2: the earlier the contactthe more complete the learning outcome in relation to target forms.

A Comparison of Native Competence, Delayed L1 Learning, andL2 Learning

We now turn our attention to a more detailed examination of a series ofstudies that are considered to be among the least ambiguous in regard tomaturational factors in the domain of morphology and syntax. These studiesinclude that undertaken by Newport and associates, and the extensivecommentary of the findings by Bialystok and Hakuta (1994).

Two distinctly different populations were studied:

1. Native signers of American Sign Language (ASL) and two groups of “later learners,” whose first exposure to ASL was at ages 4–6, and afterage 12, respectively. In other words, normal L1 acquisition (native signers) was compared with delayed L1 learning, even though the “delay”in the case of the 4–6 age group seems “early enough” to have benefitedfrom full access to the language-specific faculty. Newport (1990), in fact,categorizes the three groups as: Native, Early, and Late;

2. Second-language learners of English, all students or faculty at a U.S.university with LORs of 10 years and AOs ranging from 3 to 39. In thiscase, the investigators took care to control for the amount of formalinstruction in English, length of experience, and amount of initial exposureto English, reported motivation, affective posture toward U.S. culture,and self-consciousness when speaking in the L2.


In regard to the deaf subjects (the first population studied by Newport)the comparison between native signers and delayed L1 learners is interesting,because unlike the aberrant circumstances of delayed L1 learning in the caseof feral/abused children, the Early and Late groups in this study (and, generally,in the population of deaf children of hearing parents) are exposed to relativelynormal socialization practices, except in relation to the one key variable that isrelevant to the present inquiry.6

On the ASL Test Battery, Basic Word Order (subtest 1 out of 8) did notvary among the groups. Commenting on this result the author notes:

The distinction between word order and other grammatical structuresis in accord with results from the study of Genie, who after pubertymastered the basic word order of her language but did not control itsmorphology. (Newport, 1990, p. 16)

Indeed, on all the remaining seven tests of ASL morphology the resultsreflect significant differences in performance among all three groups. Especiallynoteworthy was the marked superiority of Native signers over Early learners.For Early learners, despite contact with ASL at 4–6 years of age, the delay wasreflected in signing patterns that would be perceived as non-native by anative signer, even after 30 years of everyday experience with ASL, a variablethat was held constant for all subjects. Newport summarizes:

These results provide strong evidence for an effect of age of acquisitionon control over primary language: the later the language is learned, theless its use is native (with crisp and grammatically consistent forms)in character. (Newport, 1990, p. 18)

Also see Mayberry’s (1993) study of native signers, late first languagelearners, and second language learners of sign, reporting results that generallyconfirm Newport’s findings.

The second-language learners (the second population studied byNewport) were administered a grammaticality judgement assessment thattested for verb tense, pluralization, verb agreement (morphology), basic wordorder, permutations involving wh-questions, use of determiners and pronouns(syntax). See figures 1 and 2 in which the graphs for both the ASL group andthe L2 group are redrawn. Again, in the case of the L2 learners we take note ofthe strong relationship between AO and test performance. Most significantly,however, a similar decline in ability begins to manifest itself among early, pre-pubescent learners; native speaker controls and the 3–7 AO group areindistinguishable one from the other, with the decline occurring between 3–7and 8–10, not at puberty, and 11–15. As with the ASL native signers andlearners, word order items did not discriminate between native-speakers andlate learners.


Figure 1. Z-scores on tests of ASL morphology for native, early,and late learners of ASL

Redrawn from Newport (1990)

Bialystok and Hakuta (1994) regroup the age brackets and also argue thata sharp drop at puberty is not supported by the data, an interpretation, as wehave seen, is consistent with other studies. Rather, comparing Figure 1 andFigure 2, the qualitative break, so to speak, appears to occur much earlier. Infact, the interpretation that seems to come forward for further reflection is thatthe 3–7 year “Age of Arrival” group may in effect be comprised of nativespeakers of English (i.e., English was their “second primary language,” secondmerely chronologically, but primary in the more critical sense that access toUG was still fully available during the years when sufficient input was receivedin English, ages 3–7). The key demarcation turns out to be between nativespeakers and second language learners (including child L2 learners in theseven-to-puberty age range). Note that in the ASL study ability to attaincomplete native grammatical competence begins to diminish at the same time.Taking into account the results of studies that have suggested age effects inthe opposite direction for L2 learning, Bialystok and Hakuta speculate thatthe concept of a critical period may not be applicable to second-languagelearning at all.7

To recapitulate the arguments that have been considered up to this point:(a) a fundamental difference between child L1 and adult L2 establishes, in

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Nat ive Early Late

Age of Acquisition

Mea

n Z

-sco

re


190

200

210

220

230

240

250

260

270

280

Native 3 to 7 8 to 10 11 to 15 17 to 39

Age of Arrival

Mea

n S

core

Figure 2. Total score on test of English grammar in relation to Ageof arrival

Redrawn from Newport (1990)

principle, the possibility of a critical period; (b) the original proposal thatpuberty marks a sharp decline in access to the LAD has been considerablyweakened; (c) rather, the stage at which primary-language competence attainscompleteness around the basic grammatical structures (age 6, plus or minus 1)is suggested by more than one study as a possible threshold, such that thedistinction being proposed now is, in effect, between first language (or firstlanguages) and second language. Not coincidentally, this distinction concurs,hypothetically, with two periods: during the first, early childhood access toUG is complete. Henceforth, perhaps diminishing gradually, access may beless than complete.

In circumstances of anomalous language development, as in the case inwhich processible input in a natural human language is denied during earlychildhood when access to the LAD is normally unimpeded, language willdevelop without the full participation of the special language acquisitionmechanisms of the LAD. This is the circumstance that corresponds to Newport’searly (but not early enough) and late ASL learners.


Evidence from Canadian ImmersionShifting our focus from experimental studies involving relatively small

numbers of subjects to large-scale studies of second language learning, indirectevidence that is consistent with the early critical period hypothesis outlinedabove will be considered.

The Canadian French immersion programs have offered researchers theopportunity to examine the learning outcomes of large numbers of L2 students,under relatively uniform circumstances; the same L1, entering students aregenerally monolingual without significant preschool contact with French. Inthe case of the early total model, instructional programs provide significantamounts of input in the L2 for as long as eight years beginning at the sametime (kindergarten). Of the different learning outcomes which investigatorshave studied, the ones that can potentially shed light on the question ofmaturational constraints are those that measured aspects of proficiency inFrench.

A review of the literature presents findings that have been remarkablyuniform. While interpretations of the data have varied, sparking considerabledebate, the facts are generally not in dispute:

1. Predictably, students’ L1 development, or performance on academic language tasks in English, does not suffer in any way despite thousands of hours of instructional time shifted to French-medium instruction;

2. On measures of academic discourse in French, where the assessmentcriteria are focused on aspects of performance that are relativelyindependent of grammar, especially in receptive tasks, immersion studentsattain levels comparable to native speaking French children;

3. On all measures which estimate command of the L2 linguistic structures,especially in oral expressive tasks, significant and wide-rangingdeficiencies are evident in comparison to native-speaker norms, evenafter as many as 7,000 to 8,000 hours of schooling in the second language.Grammatical competence is almost always demonstratively non-native,often diverging considerably from target levels. From the earlier smallerscale studies to more recent studies involving thousands of subjects, thesame general patterns emerge (Spilka, 1976; Swain, 1984; Pawley, 1985;Hammerly, 1987; Harley et al., 1990; Lapkin et al., 1991; Calvé, 1991; LeBlanc,1992; Kowal & Swain, 1997).

The contrast between #2 and #3 is especially noteworthy. When it ispossible to separate out aspects of language proficiency that depend on theapplication of general learning strategies (text-level organization, coherence,comprehension of subject-matter content, etc.) L2 learners, provided withadequate instruction, perform at the same level as native speakers. On measuresthat in fact distinguish between native speakers and L2 learners (pronunciationaside, primarily in the area of syntax and morphology), immersion students


reveal themselves unequivocally as the latter. While Hammerly’s (1987) overallassessment of the programs is perhaps overly critical, his characterization ofstudents’ L2 grammatical knowledge is probably accurate—that of a stabilizedinterlanguage marked by fossilized patterns in relation to many structuresthat are acquired early and completely by native speakers.

It is important to emphasize that the evidence from early French immersionin favor of a critical period culminating around age six or seven is indirect andremains circumstantial. A number of possible explanations for the discrepanciescome to mind; prominent in the literature, for example, is the lack of extra-curricular contact with the L2. Certainly, future research will need to untanglethe various interacting factors. However, the apparent uniformity of Frenchimmersion students’ level of interlanguage attainment is surely cause forreflection. For example, the quality and method of instruction would rank lowon the scale of plausible explanations. If the principles and constraints of UGare still available (completely and in an unfettered manner) during the periodfrom Kindergarten through eighth grade, 7,000 hours of communicative useand meaning-based exposure to the language should be sufficient for asignificant minority of children to achieve, at least, near-native levels with“crisp and grammatically consistent forms,” a result that continues to eludeall variants of immersion. Returning to our model of how L1 core grammar istriggered, we can discard the hypothesis that preschool children mustnecessarily have the opportunity to systematically practice L1 languagepatterns, or engage in frequent and ongoing “negotiation of meaning” withmore advanced speakers to be able to set the appropriate parameters. Indeed,some aspects of early language development (i.e., preschool acquisition ofthe mother tongue) probably do not require the “comprehensible” componentof “comprehensible input,” much less the communicative and interactiveacquisition contexts of the “motherese” genre.

A possible UG-oriented explanation for the stabilization of Frenchimmersion interlanguage could hypothesize the following: Anglophonechildren enter Kindergarten during the final stages of a critical period thatresults in completion of the acquisition of L1 core grammar. The culminationof this process coincides with the beginning of a gradual diminution of accessto the language-specific faculty. How rapidly and to what degree this erosionof access to UG unfolds remains unclear. Perhaps the rate and ultimate level ofthe erosion varies from child to child. Nevertheless, in general, children beginlearning a second language (after exploiting the LAD for L1 development)with diminished resources available from the language module. At the sametime, general cognitive development continues and the more mature strategies,now at children’s disposal, can be applied to the task of L2 learning. The rateof intellectual development and the access to general, top-down, learningmechanisms also vary from child to child. The variation in available resourcesfrom the different modules and cognitive domains (some in decline, others inascendancy) may account for individual differences in performance on


linguistic tasks related to the target language grammar. Evidence in favor ofthis hypothesis would exist, for example, if immersion students’ interlanguageattainment shows individual variation that is not typical of the more uniformdevelopment of grammatical structures among native speakers. In any case,the loss of complete access to UG, only partially compensated for by its“surrogate(s),” typically will place a limit on interlanguage development. Wewill recall, by the way, that the construction of an interlanguage is not thesame as early childhood primary-language development (as well as theobservation that all languages that develop sufficiently during early childhoodare “first” or primary languages).

Credit goes to Selinker et al. (1974) for first describing immersion students’productive abilities in French in terms of the characteristics of interlanguage(IL): systematicity at any one particular stage, backsliding and reappearanceof fossilized errors, stability over time of intermediate forms, and mutualintelligibility among speakers of the same IL. 8

A Proposal for a Comparative Study of TwoContrasting L2 Learner Populations

In North America and Mexico bilingual and second language teachingprograms involving millions of school-age children have offered researchersimportant opportunities to focus attention on specific interacting factorsprecisely because the contexts of language learning differ, two cases in point:Modiano (1972) and Hernández-Chávez (1984). Since the differences are oftenbroad and systematic, this allows for pertinent contrasts to be revealed foranalysis and discussion. One such opportunity exists in a comparison betweentwo large populations of L2 learners that share some key features in common,the French immersion students described above, and ESL students of thesame age group (K-8) in the United States who receive systematic secondlanguage instruction of some kind: either or both (a) all English, ESL-style,immersion, and/or (b) dual-language instruction, but not (c) English mainstreamsubmersion that provides minimal comprehensible input for the L2 learner.

Under the category of similar characteristics, the following would berelevant: (a) extensive contact with a second language in school, so that theL2 is both the object and medium of instruction; (b) in each case the L2 is anational and/or official language of the state or province and ( c) to keep L1constant, the U.S. cohort could be restricted to immigrants from Spanish-speaking countries (the selection of immigrants would offer the addedadvantage of limiting preschool exposure to the L2—in most cases prior contactwith English would be minimal, thus approximating more closely the situationof French immersion starters (usually monolingual in their L1).

A number of differences are important to account for in the interpretationof any results:

1. In Canada, while both official recognition and the general status of Frenchhave made important gains in recent years, English remains the socially


dominant language. In strictly communicative, utilitarian terms, Englishcontinues to occupy center stage. This circumstance represents a majormotivational disadvantage for L2 learners of French in contrast to theirU.S. counterparts. General access to the opportunity structure in theUnited States is virtually blocked by failure to learn English: an analogouslimitation in Canada (especially outside of Quebec) for the English-speaking monolingual is of a completely different order;

2. A significant and far-reaching divergence in socio-economicbackground, a factor that is at best only partially ameliorated by higherincomes received in the United States by most immigrants from LatinAmerica. The third factor (surely among others) that distinguishes theFrench L2 and English L2 learners is the key variable that would in factprovide valuable data for the resolution of the critical period question;

3. Related to both points #1 and #2 above, the absolute amount of L2 inputthat English learners actually receive in and out of school is significantlygreater. Let us consider two variants:

a. The ESL student who lives and attends school in aspeech community in which the greater part of familyand other social networks promote the continued useof the L1 either exclusively or predominantly.Nevertheless, daily contact with English is still moreextensive than for the average French L2 student,television being the primary source, aside from otherdomains in and out of school in which the L2continually and progressively (as a function of thechild’s age) penetrates;

b. The opposite end of the continuum where frequent,daily, extracurricular contact with the L2 extends to alldomains, including bilingual family members.

Considering all the above, the following research question could providea framework for designing a broad investigation of L2 learning outcomesfocused on ultimate attainment of the respective linguistic systems, that is,how closely do children in the 6-to-puberty age group approximate native-speaker command of phonological patterns, morphology, syntax, and corelexical knowledge. The reader will note that the question of academic discourseproficiencies, especially literacy skills, would be considered separately, first,because a strict conceptual distinction must be maintained between the twoaspects of general language ability (Francis, 2000). Measures of academicdiscourse proficiency do not and cannot discriminate between native-speakercompetence and successively lower interlanguage levels of attainment. Forexample, it has been demonstrated that French immersion students’ academicachievement in general and their command of discourse abilities in the L2 are


comparable with both English-speaking peers (in regard to subject areaknowledge) and French-speaking controls (in regard to both subject areacontent and discourse abilities). This finding, to reemphasize, is consistentlyand robustly demonstrated in all studies despite the equally consistent generalfailure to achieve even near-native levels in grammar. And secondly, it is theassessment of strictly linguistic structures that will reveal developmentalpatterns that are relevant to the issue of maturational constraints.

Turning now to the English L2 learners, a different profile, potentially,would emerge. Although a broad-based assessment of grammatical knowledgeof ESL students of the type envisioned here has never been carried out,informal observation and numerous anecdotal accounts strongly suggestthat, on average, immigrant children from Latin America who actually continueto reside continuously in the United States and are enrolled in school duringthe same period achieve significantly higher levels of L2 grammaticalcompetence than their French L2 counterparts. This finding, to be confirmedempirically, would be entirely predictable; see “differences” under points #1and #3 above.

The relevant questions include the following:

1. With significantly greater input in English in school, in the community,and through the media, how much greater is the level of ultimateattainment (and to which subsystems of overall linguistic competencedo the increments correspond)?

2. Considering the range in extracurricular access to L2 (variants 3a and 3babove), will this variation be reflected in different attainment levels?For example, a working hypothesis would predict that French L2 studentswill receive the lowest scores, the high extracurricular L2 contact group(ESL-group 3b) the highest scores, with the ESL-group 3a scoring withinthe intermediate range;

3. What percentage of English L2 learners achieve levels of grammaticalcompetence that are indistinguishable from those of native speakers, asrevealed in accurate and automatic control of English in unplanned,spontaneous, productive tasks?

If the explanation for why French immersion students fall far short ofnative speaker target forms is that input is not sufficiently extensive or variedto allow the language faculty to construct a complete linguistic system, thelitmus test, so to speak, for this claim would be ESL students with significantdaily contact with the L2. In other words, if full access to UG is still availablebetween six and puberty, it would be highly improbable that children withseven or eight years of daily interaction with English speakers and exposureto English-language television programming at such levels would not attainnative-speaker levels. Thus, the standard would need to be very high for thisgroup. Even if a significant minority was found to depart from native-speakerlevels (and if this difference was manifested consistently even in what are


often termed “surface features” of phonology, syntax and morphology, forexample)9 the post-six-year-complete-access-to-UG claim would be seriouslyweakened.

The design of such a comparative study would need to be able to accountfor the relevant variables, and to the degree possible isolate the ones that arenot pertinent to the research questions at hand. For example, the relativestatus of French and English in their respective countries (point #1 under“differences”) cannot be controlled, but this factor favors English L2 learning,representing an intervening variable favoring complete attainment for the ESLgroup and skewing the tendencies in the same direction as difference #3 (thegreater overall amount of L2 input that the English learners receive). In regardto difference #2, it has been generally recognized that French immersionstudents, being a self-selected population drawn from more favored socialclasses than the vast majority of Latin American immigrants, enjoy a widerange of advantages vis-à-vis school and schooling. Their impressive levelsof achievement in subject areas and in English language arts are often attributedto this circumstance (Hernández-Chávez, 1984; Calvé, 1991; Valdés, 1997).Thus, to partially compensate for this imbalance, only those ESL studentswho exhibit consistent progress in subject area achievement would be selectedfor comparison. In this way, setting aside ESL students who fail to demonstrateprogress in school would indirectly maximize “similar characteristic” #1 above:English learners with “extensive contact with a second language in school, L2is both object and medium of instruction.” Finally, in regard to thismethodological issue, we should remember that the assessment criteria are tobe restricted to linguistic or structural features of French and English, notacademic discourse abilities. If access to UG is complete for the ESL student,even under conditions of average to marginally acceptable academicperformance, extensive daily contact with the target language should besufficient to ensure native levels of attainment in core grammar, even if reportcard grades are far from outstanding.

In summary, the following would represent evidence that access to thelanguage-specific faculty, UG, begins to diminish (or be obstructed in someway) around age 6 or 7, and not at puberty:

1. A significant number of English learners in seventh or eighth generallygrade, with sustained and continuous extracurricular contact with theL2 during the school years, can be clearly distinguished from nativespeakers in regard to their command of linguistic features of English.This might be observed despite satisfactory achievement in the academicdomains, including literacy in English. In other words, English learnerswould resemble the French immersion students in this key aspect ofultimate attainment: despite significant amounts of L2 input, not all childrenwho otherwise evidence satisfactory and below average (but passing)academic progress attain native levels. The difference between the ESLgroup and French immersion would be, therefore, a matter of degree, not


kind. With greater experience and communicative use in the L2, ESLstudents’ interlanguage development approaches native levels to agreater degree;

2. Evidence of a correlation between academic achievement and knowledgeof basic grammatical patterns in the second language, becausehypothetically the same general cognitive abilities would play animportant role in both learning objectives.10 Note that with monolingualchildren, such a correlation would not be in evidence (students even withthe lowest academic achievement cannot be distinguished from thosewith the highest achievement in regard to the features that define native-speaker grammatical competence);

3. The evidence listed in #2 would be related to an observed variation in L2attainment according to estimates of extracurricular exposure to English.If access to UG is not the significant factor, increments in the amount ofexperience with the L2 would be reflected in corresponding increments inattainment, in an incremental and quantitative manner. If access to UG iscompletely available during this period in the same manner that it is duringL1 acquisition in early childhood, a qualitative break would be evident atsome point, clearly separating children who attained native levels fromthose who did not.

In addition to the example of counterevidence mentioned above (the“qualitative break”), evidence favoring the hypothesis of “complete accessto UG for L2 learning” during the 6-to-puberty period would include: a) beyonda certain threshold of extracurricular experience with English, all ESL studentseventually attain native-speaker levels. If, on the other hand, beyond thishypothetical threshold only a fraction attains native speaker levels, the findingwill continue to pose a problem for the hypothesis of “complete access to UGfor L2 learning.” Rather, a threshold would need to be identified beyondwhich complete acquisition of the target language is exhibited homogeneously;b) As with first-language development, if mastery of the basic grammaticalpatterns of English does not correlate with general academic achievement,this would suggest that grammatical competence developed thanks to thecontinued, undiminished functioning of the language-specific faculty (whichoperates largely independently of the general learning mechanisms). In otherwords, if ESL students’ ultimate attainment were shown to be different in kind,and not just in degree, from French immersion students’ attainment levels,this result would support the alternative of either a late-ending critical period(puberty), or none at all (continued access to UG into adulthood).

Conclusion

A number of bilingual pedagogy issues were mentioned in the introductionthat would be directly or indirectly informed by further research on maturational


constraints. Findings would also clarify key points in the current debate overschool language policy.11

1. When and in what proportion to introduce L2 instructionNone of the current hypotheses regarding critical periods suggests any

negative consequences arising from the early introduction of second languageinstruction. Rather, a number of potential advantages favor it (see Krashen’s(1996) “Gradual exit, variable threshold” model that recommends nopostponement of English instruction). Also, Bialystok (1991) and Hakuta’s(1990) claim that second-language learning promotes the development ofmetalinguistic awareness and higher order language proficiency would becompatible with an earlier critical period. Six and seven year olds who mustbegin to shift toward the application of general cognitive strategies for thetask of L2 learning, because parameters are no longer automatically set byexposure to positive evidence only, will benefit from the new challenges thatcome with linguistic problem solving. Learning new grammatical structureswill require the application of higher order cognitive operations, in this waypromoting general intellectual development.12

On the other hand, assuming that age 6 or 7 represents a maturationalmilestone after which access to UG begins to diminish would also underlinethe rationale for preschool exposure to languages that are important for childrento acquire and learn. For example, in bilingual communities whose local,ancestral language is the object of language revitalization efforts, unlesschildren are in sustained contact with the local language from an early age(well before kindergarten), school-based programs, within the context of thepredominant influence of the national, dominant language, will probably fallshort of expectations. An earlier and complete access to the language facultymay also explain the phenomenon—reported in such situations of intenselanguage contact—of a rapid development of L2 upon entry to primary schoolon the part of children who demonstrate productive, expressive abilities inonly one language (Francis, 1997).

2. Rate at which bilingual students can be expected to develop controlover L2 grammar

If the process of L2 learning after age 6 or 7 is different in some way fromthat of L1 acquisition, it would be a mistake to assume that it will proceedeffortlessly, uniformly, automatically, and at the same rapid rate. Rather, teacherswould expect a variation in both rate and ultimate attainment in accord withfactors that are maturational, and in accord with factors related to the child’sexperience with and mastery of higher order learning strategies. If (school-age) child L2 learning is different in kind from early childhood L1 acquisition,this distinction offers yet another possible explanation for why Englishlanguage learners may fail to make adequate progress in settings that do notprovide significant amounts of high-quality ESL and/or dual-language


instruction (e.g., varieties of “ESL-inclusion” that in effect resemblesubmersion, “ESL-pullout,” etc.)

3. Rationale for L1 literacy developmentAs indicated earlier, higher order discourse abilities are largely

independent of basic grammatical competence. However, initial literacy, forexample, depends upon the learner’s knowledge of the linguistic systems ofthe language through which reading and writing are to be taught. In the caseof L2, a certain minimal threshold of control over grammatical patterns andvocabulary would be indispensable. For some children this threshold mayturn out to be lower than for others. Nevertheless, the general principle wouldstill apply to L2 learners as a whole. Thus if #2 is correct a major first languageliteracy component of bilingual, second language programs in the early yearswould ensure that all ESL students will have the opportunity to process textswith adequate grammatical knowledge at their disposal, not just those whohave advanced most rapidly in English language development.

4. Communicative-based and form-focused teachingRecent research, occasioned by the seemingly disappointing results in

the area of French immersion students’ L2 grammatical knowledge, hasproposed a shift away from an exclusive emphasis on “comprehensive input”and toward models that provide for more explicit attention to language patterns,as in conscious reflection on structures in output, monitoring grammaticalform, contrasting target forms with students’ own partial knowledge, etc.(Swain & Lapkin, 1995; Schmidt, 1990). In contrast, see Krashen (1993) for aresponse to the “output hypothesis.” If in fact conscious learning can play asignificant role in child L2 development (and evidence suggests that it does),this poses an interesting question: if children after six and through pubertyboth profit from, and require the application of general cognitive strategies inL2 learning, this implies that a different kind of language development isinvolved—different from primary-language development that may “profit,”in some way, from conscious learning, but clearly does not require it.

Most bilingual and ESL teachers today would favor the idea thatconscious learning strategies and focus on form-learning activities canfacilitate the English language development of their students. It turns outthat this pedagogical intuition may be supported by sound theoreticalprinciples.

References

Akmajian, A., Demmers, R., Farmer, A., & Harnish, R. (1995). Linguistics:An introduction to language and communication. Cambridge: MITPress.

Bhatia, T., & Ritchie, W. (1999). The bilingual child: Some issues andperspectives. In W. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of childlanguage acquisition (pp. 569–643). New York: Academic Press.


Bialystok, E. (1991). Metalinguistic dimensions of bilingual languageproficiency. In E. Bialystok (Ed.), Language processing in bilingualchildren (pp. 113–140). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Bialystok, E., & Hakuta, K. (1994). In other words: The science andpsychology of second language acquisition. New York: Basic Books.

Bley-Vroman, R. (1989). What is the logical problem of foreign languagelearning? In S. M. Gass & J. Schachter (Eds.), Linguistic perspectiveson second language acquisition (pp. 41–68). New York: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Bloom, P. (1994). Recent controversies in the study of language acquisition.In M. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 741–779). New York: Academic Press.

Calvé, P. (1991). Vingt-cinq ans d’immersion au Canada. Etudes deLinguistique Appliquée, 82, 7–23.

Chomsky, N. (1988). Language and problems of knowledge: The Managualectures. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Cook, V. (1996). Competence and multi-competence. In G. Brown, K.Malmljaer, & J. Williams (Eds.), Performance and competence in secondlanguage acquisition (pp. 54–69). New York: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Crawford, J. (1997). California’s Proposition 227: A post mortem. BilingualResearch Journal, 21, 1–30.

Cummins, J. (1996). Negotiating identities: Education for empowerment ina diverse society. Ontario, CA: California Association for BilingualEducation.

De Gaetano, Y., Williams, L., & Volk, D. (1998). Kaleidoscope: A multiculturalapproach for the primary school classroom. Columbus, OH: Merrill.

Durkin, D. (1995). Language issues: Readings for teachers. White Plains,NY: Longman.

Faltis, C. (2001). Joinfostering: Adapting teaching for the multilingualclassroom. Columbus, OH: Merrill.

Francis, N. (1997). Malinztin: Bilingüismo y alfabetización en la Sierra deTlaxcala. Quito: Ediciones Abya-yala.

Francis, N. (2000). The shared conceptual system and language processingin bilingual children: Findings from literacy assessment in Spanishand Náhuatl. Applied Linguistics, 21, 170–204.

Genesee, F. (1991). L’immersion et l’apprenant défavorisé. Etudes deLinguistique Appliquée, 82, 77–93.

Genesee, F. (1994). Educating second language children: The whole child,the whole curriculum, the whole community. New York: CambridgeUniversity Press.


Goldin-Meadow, S., & Mylander, C. (1990). Beyond the input given: Thechild’s role in the acquisition of language. Language, 66, 323–355.

Gregg, K. (1996). The logical and developmental problems of secondlanguage acquisition. In W. Ritchie & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook ofsecond language acquisition (pp. 49–81). New York: Academic Press.

Hakuta, K. (1990). Language and cognition in bilingual children. In A. M.Padilla, H. H. Fairchild, & C. M. Valadez (Eds.), Bilingual education:Issues and strategies (pp. 47–59). Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press.

Hammerly, H. (1987). The immersion approach: Litmus test of secondlanguage acquisition through classroom communication. The ModernLanguage Journal, 71, 395–401.

Harley, B., Allen, P., Cummins, J., & Swain, M. (1990). The developmentof second language proficiency. New York: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Hernández, H. (1997). Teaching in multilingual classrooms: A teacher’sguide to context, process, and content. Columbus, OH: Merrill.

Hernández-Chávez, E. (1984). The inadequacy of English immersioneducation as an educational approach for language minority studentsin the United States. In D. Dolson (Ed.), Studies on immersioneducation: A collection for United States educators (pp. 144–183).Sacramento, CA: California State Department of Education.

Hurford, J. (1991). The evolution of the critical period for languageacquisition. Cognition, 40, 159–201.

Kowal, M., & Swain, M. (1997). From semantic to syntactic processing:How can we promote it in the immersion classroom? In R. K. Johnson& M. Swain (Eds.), Immersion education: International perspectives.(pp. 284–309). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Krashen, S. (1993). The case for free voluntary reading. The CanadianModern Language Review, 50, 72–81.

Krashen, S. (1996). A gradual exit, variable threshold model for limitedEnglish proficient children. NABE News, 19, 1–18.

Krashen, S. (1999). Condemned without a trial: Bogus arguments againstbilingual education. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Lapkin, S., Hart, D., & Swain, M. (1991). Early and middle French immersionprograms: French language outcomes. The Canadian ModernLanguage Review, 48, 11–37.

LeBlanc, R. (1992). Les programmes d’immersion et l’habileté à communiquer.Etudes de Linguistique Appliquée, 88, 67–82.

Lenneberg, E. (1964). The capacity for language acquisition. In J. Fodor& J. Katz (Eds.), The structure of language: Readings in the philosophyof language (pp. 579–603). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.


Lenneberg, E. (1967). The biological foundations of language. New York:Wiley.

Lessow-Hurley, J. (2000). The foundations of dual language instruction.New York: Longman.

Long, M. (1990). Maturational constraints on language development. Studiesin Second Language Acquisition, 12, 251–285.

MacSwan, J. (1999). A minimalist approach to intrasententialcodeswitching. New York: Garland Publishing.

Maratsos, M. (1992). Constraints, modules, and domain specificity: Anintroduction. In M. Gunnar & M. Maratsos (Eds.), Modularity andconstraints in language and cognition (pp. 1–23). Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.

Mayberry, P. (1993). First language acquisition after childhood differs fromsecond language acquisition: The case of American Sign Language.Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 36, 1258–1270.

Meisel, J. (1991) Principles of Universal Grammar and strategies of languageuse: On some similarities and differences between first and secondlanguage acquisition. In L. Eubank (Ed.), Point counterpoint:Universal Grammar in the second language (pp. 231–276). Philadelphia:John Benjamins.

Miramontes, O. (1993). ESL policies and school restructuring: Risks andopportunities for language minority students. The Journal ofEducational Issues of Language Minority Students, 12, 77–95.

Modiano, N. (1972). Indian education in the Chiapas highlands. NewYork: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

Newport, E. (1990). Maturational constraints on language learning.Cognition, 14, 11–29.

Patkowski, M. (1980). The sensitive period for the acquisition of syntax ina second language. Language Learning, 30, 449–472.

Pawley, C. (1985). How bilingual are French immersion students? TheCanadian Modern Language Review, 41, 865–876.

Pérez, B., & Torres-Guzmán, M. (1996). Learning in two worlds: Anintegrated Spanish/English biliteracy approach. White Plains, NY:Longman.

Pinker, S. (1990). Language acquisition. In D. Osherson & H. Lasnik (Eds.)Language: An invitation to cognitive science (pp. 199–241). Cambridge:MIT Press.

Pinker, S. (1994). The language instinct: How the mind creates language.New York: Harper Collins.

Pinker, S. (1996). Rules of language. In H. Geirsson & M. Losonsky (Eds.),Readings in language and mind (pp. 558–569). Oxford: Blackwell.


Piper, T. (1998). Language and learning: The home and school years.Columbus, OH: Merrill.

Ramírez, J. D. (1992). Executive summary: Longitudinal study of structuredEnglish Immersion Strategy, early-exit and late-exit transitional bilingualeducation programs of language-minority children. Bilingual ResearchJournal, 16, 1–61.

Roberts, I. (1994). Universal grammar and L1 acquisition. In N. C. Ellis (Ed.),Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp. 455–476). New York:Academic Press.

Sacks, O. (1990). Seeing voices: A journey into the world of the deaf. NewYork: Basic Books.

Schachter, J. (1988). Second language acquisition and its relationship touniversal grammar. Applied Linguistics, 9, 219–235.

Schachter, J. (1996). Learning and triggering in adult L2 acquisition. In G.Brown, K. Malmkjaer, & J. Williams (Eds.), Performance and competencein second language acquisition (pp. 70–88). New York: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning.Applied Linguistics, 11, 129–158.

Scovel, T. (1998). Psycholinguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Selinker, L., Swain, M., & Dumas, G. (1974). The interlanguage hypothesisextended to children. Language Learning, 25, 139–151.

Sharwood-Smith, M. (1994). Second language learning: Theoreticalfoundations. New York: Longman.

Singleton, D. (1995). A critical look at the critical period hypothesis insecond language acquisition research. In D. Singleton & Z. Lengyel(Eds.), The age factor in second language acquisition (pp. 1–29).Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.

Spilka, I. (1976). Assessment of second language performance in immersionprograms. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 32, 543–561.

Swain, M. (1984). A review of immersion education in Canada: Researchand evaluation studies. In D. Dolson (Ed.), Studies on immersioneducation: A collection for United States educators (pp. 87–112).Sacramento: California State Department of Education.

Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitiveprocesses they generate: A step towards second language learning.Applied Linguistics, 16, 371–391.

Tager-Flusberg, H., & Calkins, S. (1990). Does imitation facilitate theacquisition of grammar? Evidence from a study of autistic, Down’sSyndrome and normal children. Journal of Child Language, 17,591–605.


Valdés, G. (1997). Dual-language immersion programs: A cautionary noteconcerning the education of language-minority students. HarvardEducational Review, 67, 391–429.

White, L. (1991). Second language competence versus second languageperformance: UG or processing strategies. In L. Eubank (Ed.), Pointcounterpoint: Universal Grammar in the second language (pp. 167–189). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Wong Fillmore, L. (1995). When learning a second language means losingthe first. In G. González & L. Maez (Eds.), Compendium of researchon bilingual education (pp. 19–36). Washington, DC: NationalClearinghouse for Bilingual Education.

Endnotes1. See Lenneberg (1964) for an early discussion of criteria for innately givencompetencies that can be applied to language.

2. For a more complete discussion see Akmajian et al. (1995), Scovel (1998)from a psycholinguistic point of view, Roberts (1994) on how linguistic inputplus general learning strategies are insufficient, Goldin-Meadow and Mylander(1990), and Tager-Flusberg and Calkins (1990) on the concept of “creativeconstruction” (in what way children’s language development is “autonomous”from the input they receive), Schachter (1996) on setting parameters (triggering)versus learning, and Bloom (1994) for a general survey of the research on first-language acquisition.

3. For an alternative perspective that questions the Fundamental DifferenceHypothesis, see Cook (1996), and White (1991), and for a comprehensivereview of the literature, Sharwood-Smith (1994) and Bhatia and Ritchie (1999).Gregg (1996) discusses what has been termed the “logical problem” in L1acquisition (also known as the problem of the “poverty of stimulus”): how toaccount for the “enormous gap between the grammatical knowledge acquiredon the one hand, and the specific linguistic data the child receives on theother, such that the latter grossly underdetermines the former” (p. 52). In thecase of L2 learning, Gregg suggests that the “logical problem” may still applyeven if the majority of learners fail to achieve native-like competence. Thefinal state of the interlanguage, however nontarget-like it turns out to be, maystill require the participation of UG because L2 input data is simply not sufficientfor the construction of such a complex system. The inquiry, then, wouldcenter on how to account for the vast differences between L1 acquisition(children “reach essentially the same end point from the same starting point,”)(p. 56) and the wide variation in ultimate attainment in L2 learning. Related tothis point, conclusive supporting evidence for the FDH does not hinge ongeneralized failure to achieve native-like competence since other learningmechanisms (outside of UG) may come to play a prominent role, in addition tolinguistic knowledge represented in the learner’s first language; his or her


“starting point” would be a “UG-governed L1 grammar.” In other words, theFDH does not imply that native-like performance in L2 is impossible to attainwithout full access to UG. Also see a discussion of the Fundamental DifferenceHypothesis in MacSwan (1999, pp. 29–36), research evidence in Meisel (1991),and an application of the concept of modularity to L2 learning in Gregg (1996).

4. Also see Pinker (1994), and Sacks (1990) for a consideration of other caseswithin the framework of a broader discussion of the linguistic isolation mostdeaf children experience during early childhood.

5. In this paper “linguistics features” and “structural aspects” refer to thegrammatical patterns of the language, corresponding to the rule systems thatgovern phonology, syntax and morphology, and semantic knowledge. Nativespeakers are considered to possess a “complete” control over these interactingsystems in the sense that they do not exhibit partial knowledge that is typicallyrevealed in the performance of most L2 learners. Complete knowledge thatcorresponds to this domain of language proficiency should not be confusedwith literacy-related academic uses of language that are learned in school orin other formal and informal learning situations.

6. See Sacks (1990) for why exposure to spoken language during earlychildhood for the “early” (but not “native”) and “late” learners of ASL wouldnot ensure normal acquisition of a first language.

7. See Singleton (1995) for a more extensive discussion from a differentperspective (sharply critical of Bley-Vroman’s FDH).

8. Also see Genesee (1991) for a discussion of the role of general cognitiveabilities and the language faculty in different aspects of immersion students’L2 proficiency.

9. An important consideration in evaluating subjects for ultimate attainmentof strictly linguistic features is that the domain of knowledge to be sampled(in spontaneous speech, grammatical acceptability judgement, etc.) mustcorrespond to the subsystems of phonology, syntax and morphology, corelexical knowledge, etc., and not to the “higher order,” literacy-related, discourseabilities. Consequently, the focus of assessment would be shifted to aspectsof language that, from a teaching point of view, may be considered of marginalimportance, the kind of discrete point errors (often termed “local errors”)which often do not merit serious attention. Correctly so, pedagogically orientederror correction, for example, focuses on structures that are tied to the academicdiscourse objectives of the ESL curriculum. However, it is precisely the discretepoint features that distinguish native-speaker levels from interlanguagepatterns that clearly reflect partial grammatical knowledge.

Special attention would be given to the selection of judges and evaluators.Only bilinguals who are familiar with the variant of English spoken in theUnited States by Spanish speakers, who also often possess native-speakercompetence in English, are able to discriminate between: (a) this particular


variant of English, in which even Hispanic monolingual speakers of Englishmaintain certain structural features transferred from Spanish (in speech), forexample, to mark ethnic identity; and (b) true learner-language or interlanguageforms of English that reflect partial knowledge, unlike in #1.

10. In comparing measures of general academic achievement and progress inlearning English, the relevant comparison (for the population proposed inthis study and for the purposes that are of interest to us) would be between:(a) academic achievement in subject areas for which L1 (in this case Spanish)medium instruction was available, utilizing a Spanish language assessmentinstrument; and (b) command of the linguistic structures of English. Clearly,for the purpose of examining such a correlation, only ESL students who havehad the benefit of bilingual instruction could be included in the study.

11. See the discussion on the relative merits of different program options, thenecessary features of L2 teaching that can ensure additive bilingualdevelopment, and the broader controversy on the role of primary-languageinstruction for English language learners in the United States (Ramírez, 1992;Miramontes, 1993; Valdés, 1997; Krashen, 1999). Clarity on the precise natureof the differences between L1 acquisition and L2 learning will also sharpenthe arguments in favor of bilingual education at a time when confusion hasdeepened on even the more fundamental concepts (see Crawford, 1997).

12. For an alternative perspective on childhood bilingualism, the reader isreferred to Wong-Fillmore (1995) regarding the potential negativeconsequences of an early introduction of L2-medium content instruction.

AcknowledgementsThe author extends thanks to the US/Mexico Fund for Culture and the

Office of Grants and Contracts of Northern Arizona University for theirgenerous support to the present research project.

maturational constraints in language one and language … · when and in what proportion to...

Documents