Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Why all counter-evidence to the critical period...

Research

Links

Text available via DOI:

View graph of relations

Why all counter-evidence to the critical period hypothesis in second language acquisition is not equal or problematic

Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Review article › peer-review

Published

Standard

Why all counter-evidence to the critical period hypothesis in second language acquisition is not equal or problematic. / Rothman, Jason.
In: Linguistics and Language Compass, Vol. 2, No. 6, 30.11.2008, p. 1063-1088.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Review article › peer-review

Harvard

Rothman, J 2008, 'Why all counter-evidence to the critical period hypothesis in second language acquisition is not equal or problematic', Linguistics and Language Compass, vol. 2, no. 6, pp. 1063-1088. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2008.00098.x

APA

Rothman, J. (2008). Why all counter-evidence to the critical period hypothesis in second language acquisition is not equal or problematic. Linguistics and Language Compass, 2(6), 1063-1088. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2008.00098.x

Vancouver

Rothman J. Why all counter-evidence to the critical period hypothesis in second language acquisition is not equal or problematic. Linguistics and Language Compass. 2008 Nov 30;2(6):1063-1088. Epub 2008 Nov 4. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-818X.2008.00098.x

Author

Rothman, Jason. / Why all counter-evidence to the critical period hypothesis in second language acquisition is not equal or problematic. In: Linguistics and Language Compass. 2008 ; Vol. 2, No. 6. pp. 1063-1088.

Bibtex

@article{109e628ff88243338ba700b94645c54e,
title = "Why all counter-evidence to the critical period hypothesis in second language acquisition is not equal or problematic",
abstract = "That adult and child language acquisitions differ in route and outcome is observable. Notwithstanding, there is controversy as to what this observation means for the Critical Period Hypothesis' (CPH) application to adult second language acquisition (SLA). As most versions of the CPH applied to SLA claim that differences result from maturational effects on in-born linguistic mechanisms, the CPH has many implications that are amendable to empirical investigation. To date, there is no shortage of literature claiming that the CPH applies or does not apply to normal adult SLA. Herein, I provide an epistemological discussion on the conceptual usefulness of the CPH in SLA (cf. Singleton 2005) coupled with a review of Long's (2005) evaluation of much available relevant research. Crucially, I review studies that Long did not consider and conclude differently that there is no critical/sensitive period for L2 syntactic and semantic acquisition.",
author = "Jason Rothman",
year = "2008",
month = nov,
day = "30",
doi = "10.1111/j.1749-818X.2008.00098.x",
language = "English",
volume = "2",
pages = "1063--1088",
journal = "Linguistics and Language Compass",
issn = "1749-818X",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "6",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Why all counter-evidence to the critical period hypothesis in second language acquisition is not equal or problematic

AU - Rothman, Jason

PY - 2008/11/30

Y1 - 2008/11/30

N2 - That adult and child language acquisitions differ in route and outcome is observable. Notwithstanding, there is controversy as to what this observation means for the Critical Period Hypothesis' (CPH) application to adult second language acquisition (SLA). As most versions of the CPH applied to SLA claim that differences result from maturational effects on in-born linguistic mechanisms, the CPH has many implications that are amendable to empirical investigation. To date, there is no shortage of literature claiming that the CPH applies or does not apply to normal adult SLA. Herein, I provide an epistemological discussion on the conceptual usefulness of the CPH in SLA (cf. Singleton 2005) coupled with a review of Long's (2005) evaluation of much available relevant research. Crucially, I review studies that Long did not consider and conclude differently that there is no critical/sensitive period for L2 syntactic and semantic acquisition.

AB - That adult and child language acquisitions differ in route and outcome is observable. Notwithstanding, there is controversy as to what this observation means for the Critical Period Hypothesis' (CPH) application to adult second language acquisition (SLA). As most versions of the CPH applied to SLA claim that differences result from maturational effects on in-born linguistic mechanisms, the CPH has many implications that are amendable to empirical investigation. To date, there is no shortage of literature claiming that the CPH applies or does not apply to normal adult SLA. Herein, I provide an epistemological discussion on the conceptual usefulness of the CPH in SLA (cf. Singleton 2005) coupled with a review of Long's (2005) evaluation of much available relevant research. Crucially, I review studies that Long did not consider and conclude differently that there is no critical/sensitive period for L2 syntactic and semantic acquisition.

U2 - 10.1111/j.1749-818X.2008.00098.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1749-818X.2008.00098.x

M3 - Review article

AN - SCOPUS:56849083906

VL - 2

SP - 1063

EP - 1088

JO - Linguistics and Language Compass

JF - Linguistics and Language Compass

SN - 1749-818X

IS - 6

ER -