Maturational Constrains In Sla (Summary)

Maturational Constrains in SLA
(Kenneth Hyltenstam and Niclas Abrahamsson)

The domain of maturational constrains is the human capacity for language at the level of knowledge and at the level ofprocessing and it is directly related to age. Lenneberg formulates the Critical Period Hypothesis (CPH) that says that automatic native-like acquisition of L2 from exposure disappears after puberty.Then, the acquisition of L2 can be obtained through conscious and labored effort. Maturational constrains are connected to human neurological abilities and these biological dispositions are reflected inlanguage acquisition. Due to this, it is understandable that children obtain perfection in L1 despite reduced input and that the nature of the input is more decisive in L2 contexts. Krashen et al.state that older learners acquire certain aspects of L2 faster than young learners, but especially small children will anyway surpass older children and adults. This has been criticized by saying thatthe “older-faster” assumption does not account as a proof of CPH. Besides, Johnson and Newport (1989) claim that “the age effect is present during a time of ongoing biological and cognitive maturationand absent after maturation is complete.” It means that after puberty, factors such as motivation, aptitude, formal instruction, etc. will take priority. If their study would have taken into accountlate learners with native-like proficiency, they could have conclude whether factors other than maturation are responsible for failure in achieving native-like proficiency in other late learners.There are two maturational visions: The CPH (window of opportunity) and the Sensitive Period (a gradually declining effectiveness of input). Also, there are two versions of CPH: the exercised version(late L1 learners will not reach native proficiency; but late L2 learners can) and the maturational state (L1 and L2 learners must begin early to achieve native proficiency). Anyway, these two versions...