Earlier this week, my social media lit up with notifications about the results of an MIT study looking at language learning achievement and age of acquisition. I've read a few separate articles talking about the study, and one thing I've noticed is the headlines, which make broad generalizations that the study don't support, and are either skewed negative or positive. Here are a few:
MIT's own blurb by the MIT News Office Cognitive scientists define critical period for learning language
A report by the Independent Scientists reveal cut-off age for learning a new language
This bizarre combo of bleak and perky from The Guardian Becoming fluent in another language as an adult might be impossible - but I'm still going to try
And in contrast to the rest of the reporting, there's this much more upbeat take on Medium MIT scientists prove adults learn language to fluency nearly as well as children
I understand the reasoning behind clickbait headlines, but given the general public's propensity to read the headline and not even bother reading the article, it's frustrating when simple word choices misrepresent a study's findings or even what science is/does. See, for example, some key verbs from the headlines: define, reveal, prove They're all inappropriate, though that last one might be the most egregious. A single study cannot provide definitive evidence of... anything, really. Especially not something as long-debated and multi-faceted as a "critical period." The study itself What they found:
The Medium piece is the only one I read where the author actually seems to have looked at the open-access data set and done some additional analyses. He highlighted data showing that, while the average score of those who began learning English into adulthood is lower, there are still plenty of participants who scored 90%+, as high as native English speakers. And that the average adult learner was already scoring around 80% after only a year of study (though I'm not sure if those were immersion or formal classroom learners). That pretty much shoots claims of "impossibility" out of the water. More thoughts on the study What's good:
In sum Like all studies, this one is another interesting step in the direction of knowledge of language acquisition. Unfortunately, some media reporting is more accurate than others, and even the most balanced of the pieces give the conclusions more weight than is appropriate. Though I fundamentally disagree with the word "proves" (maybe that was a site-level decision, and not the author, as internet article titles are wont to be), I find myself most inclined to agree with the Medium's conclusions. The authors of the study are continuing to investigate these and similar questions, so I'm looking forward to seeing what else they can come up with. References: Hartshorne, J.K., Tenenbaum, J.B., & Pinker, S. (2018). A critical period for second language acquisition: Evidence from 2/3 million English speakers. Cognition, 177, 263-277.
0 Comments
|
AuthorThis is a place where I record thoughts on second language research and pedagogical theory Archives
June 2019
Categories |