{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

SLA assignment 2

SLA assignment 2 - the basis of which the validity of CPH...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Gahye Song February 18, 2010 In investigating the validity of Critical Period Hypothesis (CHP) in second language (L2) acquisition, the studies of Snow & Hoefnagel-Hohle and Johnson & Newport took different research approaches. Snow & Hoefnagel-Hohle’s study examined the topic through a longitudinal study and Johnson & Newport used a cross-sectional method. The two studies yielded conflicting conclusions, and it would be worthwhile to look at how these approaches resulted in opposing conclusions and what aspects of L2 acquisition these two studies emphasized through differing research methods. Snow & Hoefnagel-Hohle’s longitudinal study followed beginning Dutch learners of English speaker for a period of one year. They examined a wide range of age cohorts, from 3 years old to adults, and tested a progress of each age group through three tests over a year. The result was that 12-15 year-olds were the fastest learner overall, and 3-5 year-olds the slowest, on
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: the basis of which the validity of CPH was rejected. This study basically measured the rate of acquisition for beginners, but the period of study may be shorter than the period needed to develop an ultimate attainment level of L2. The best interpretation of this study would be in the first stage of L2 learning, adolescents with higher cognitive ability and stable first language are more advantaged than very young learners. Johnson & Newport’s cross-sectional study examined the competence of L2 speakers who acquired L2 at different ages. Through a grammaticality judgment test, it measured an ultimate attainment level and the result supported CPH. According to this study, therefore, an age is a strong predictor of L2 competence. These two studies investigated the same topic, but in fact they examined different aspects of L2 learning process through different research designs. Snow & Hoefnagel-Hohle’s study implies...
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Ask a homework question - tutors are online