1138
ResearchBib IF - 11.01, ISSN: 3030-3753, Volume 2 Issue 6
THE PSYCHOLINGUISTIC STUDY OF THE IMPACT OF AGE FACTOR ON
GRAMMATICAL AND PHONETIC SKILLS IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNING
Akhmadalieva Nargizakhon Abdumalik kizi
English teacher of Korean International University in Fergana.
njabborkhonova@mail.ru
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15714699
Annotation.
This article examines the impact of age on the acquisition of grammatical
and phonetic skills in English language learning. The research is based on the Critical Period
Hypothesis (CPH), exploring whether language learners of different ages demonstrate varied
abilities in mastering grammar and pronunciation. Findings reveal that while younger learners
tend to acquire pronunciation more naturally, older learners can achieve grammatical
competence under certain conditions. The study combines theoretical analysis with recent
empirical research to present a nuanced view of age-related factors in second language
acquisition.
Recent studies on the Critical Period Hypothesis (CPH) have sparked ongoing debates in
linguistics. This research seeks to contribute by analyzing how grammatical and phonetic skills
develop among learners at different age stages, taking into account both supporting and
opposing views on CPH.
Key Words
: Critical Period Hypothesis, age factor, second language acquisition,
grammar learning, pronunciation, psycholinguistics.
Kalit so’zlar
: Tanqidiy davr gipotezasi, yosh omili, ikkinchi tilni o‘zlashtirish,
grammatikani o‘rganish, talaffuz, lingvopsixologiya.
Ключевые слова
: Гипотеза критического периода, возрастной фактор, овладение
вторым языком, грамматические навыки, произношение, психолингвистика.
Introduction
Age has been considered a significant factor in second language acquisition. Numerous
studies suggest that children are more likely to achieve native-like fluency, especially in
pronunciation, due to the plasticity of their developing brains. The Critical Period Hypothesis
(CPH), originally proposed by Penfield and Roberts (1959) and expanded by Lenneberg (1967),
asserts that language learning is most effective between early childhood and puberty.
Methods
This study used a mixed-methods approach, combining qualitative interviews with
quantitative analysis of grammar and pronunciation tests. Participants were grouped by age:
children (6
–
10), adolescents (11
–
16), and adults (17+).
Additionally, the study took into account a range of psycholinguistic variables, including
motivation, cognitive flexibility, and language exposure.
Data Collection
Data were gathered from 90 participants enrolled in English language courses. Grammar
tests focused on syntax and morphological rules, while pronunciation was assessed through oral
reading and spontaneous speech.
Participants were also asked to complete a self-assessment on their language learning
habits and environmental influences, providing context for observed performance patterns.
1139
ResearchBib IF - 11.01, ISSN: 3030-3753, Volume 2 Issue 6
Results
Younger learners displayed more natural pronunciation, aligning with the CPH. However,
adult learners performed equally or better in grammar tests, suggesting age may be less critical
for syntactic development than for phonological skills.
These results correlate with theories that emphasize biological timing in phonetic
development, as proposed by Lenneberg (1967), and simultaneously align with more recent
findings that challenge the strict age limits of grammar acquisition.
Discussion
The study supports the Critical Period Hypothesis for phonetic acquisition, as children
more easily achieved native-like pronunciation. This is supported by researchers such as Flege
(1999), who argue that early exposure enables better articulation.
However, adults can achieve high grammatical accuracy, consistent with the findings of
White & Genesee (1996) and Birdsong, who observed that adults can learn syntax effectively.
While CPH remains influential, researchers like Bongaerts (1999) provide evidence that
motivated adults can reach native-like pronunciation under ideal conditions. Therefore, age
impacts language learning differently depending on the skill area
—
pronunciation being more
sensitive than grammar.
Conclusion
The existence of the Critical Period Hypothesis remains debated. This study reinforces
the notion that age significantly influences phonetic acquisition, but less so grammar.
While the Critical Period Hypothesis provides a useful framework, language educators
and researchers must also consider individual differences and learning environments. More
research into multilingual contexts and adult learners under optimal conditions is essential to
refine our understanding of age effects in language learning.
References
1.
Birdsong, D. (2004). Second Language Acquisition and Ultimate Attainment. In Davies,
A., and Elder, C. (Eds.), The Handbook of Applied Linguistics. Oxford, England:
Blackwell Publishing.
2.
Bridsong, D., & Molis, M. (2001). On the Evidence for Maturational Constraints in
Second Language Acquisition. Journal of Memory and Language, 44. 235-249.
3.
Bongaerts, T. (1999). Ultimate attainment in L2 Pronunciation: The Case of Very
Advanced L2Learners. In D. Birdsong (Ed.), Second Language Acquisition and The
Critical Period Hypothesis (pp. 133-159). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
4.
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
5.
Flege, J. (1999). Age of Learning and Second Language Speech. In D. Birdsong (ed.)
Second Language Acquisition and the Critical Period Hypothesis. Lawrence Erlbaum
Publishers. pp. 101-131.
6.
Flege, J., Munro, M., & MacKay, I. (1995) Effects of age of second-language learning on
the production of English consonants. Speech Communication, 16, 1-26Hakuta, K.,
Bialystok, E., & Wiley, E. (2003). Critical Evidence: A test of the Critical Period
Hypothesis for Second Language Acquisition. Psychological Science, 14(1), 31-38.
1140
ResearchBib IF - 11.01, ISSN: 3030-3753, Volume 2 Issue 6
7.
Johnson, J. & E. Newport. (1989). Critical period effects in second language learning: the
influence of maturational state on the acquisition of ESL. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 60
–
99
8.
Klein, W. (1995). Language acquisition at different ages. In D. Magnussion (Ed.), The
lifespan development of individuals: Behavioral, neurobiological, and psychological
perspectives. A synthesis (pp. 244-264). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University
Press.
9.
Krashen, S. (1973). Lateralization, language learning and the critical period: Some new
evidence. Language Learning, 23.
10.
Lenneberg, E. H. (1967). Biological Foundations of Language. New York, NY: John
Wiley. Penfield, W., & Roberts, L. (1959). Speech and brain mechanisms. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
