Starting Age Overshadowed: The Primacy of Differential Environmental and Family Support Effects on Second Language Attainment in an Instructional Context

Abstract

Despite contrary research findings, many laypeople still claim that starting second language (L2) instruction early yields linguistic advantages. This assertion is again undermined by a 5‐year longitudinal study conducted in Switzerland testing the English language skills of 636 secondary‐school students who had all learned Standard German and French at primary school, but only half of whom had learned English from age 8, the remainder having started English 5 years later. The results suggest that age‐related attainment effects are overshadowed by other effects, yielding diverse outcomes according to individual differences and contextual effects mediating L2 outcomes. An earlier age of learning proved beneficial only for children raised as biliterate simultaneous bilinguals receiving substantial parental support, as opposed to monolinguals and nonbiliterate bilinguals (simultaneous or sequential). These issues require studies that explore what underlies age effects in L2 learning and investigate how learning contexts shape processes of L2 development.

SLA and the Study of Equitable Multilingualism

“…Finally, for children who learn in foreign language settings under drip-feed conditions (e.g., 1 to 3 hours weekly), it has been found that an earlier start will not confer any advantage (Jaekel et al, 2017;Muñoz, 2006;Pfenninger & Singleton, 2016). Other factors predict L2 outcomes in these contexts, and a strong one is extramural engagement with the L2 (Huang et al, 2018;Muñoz, 2014;Pfenninger & Singleton, 2018). In sum, the new research shows that, across diverse contexts and timings, the best predictor of bilingual outcomes is experience with each language.…”

The Dynamic Multicausality of Age of First Bilingual Language Exposure: Evidence From a Longitudinal Content and Language Integrated Learning Study With Dense Time Serial Measurements

“…Research on early FL learning in limited‐exposure classrooms, however, has painted a different picture, indicating little advantage for an early start. This has been attributed to the complex status of age as a “macro‐variable” (Montrul, 2008) associated with myriad socio‐affective, contextual, and cognitive factors, but also to the scarce number of instructional hours per FL per week (see, e.g., Al–Thubaiti, 2010, for Saudi Arabia; Buchholz, 2007, for Austria; Genelot, 1997, for France; Graham et al., 2017, for Great Britain; Jaekel et al., 2017, for Germany; Larson–Hall, 2008, for Japan; Muñoz, 2006, for Catalonia [Spain]; Pfenninger & Singleton, 2017, 2019, for Switzerland; de Wolf, Smit, & Lowie, 2017, for the Netherlands). On this, many proponents of the Critical Period Hypothesis (CPH; e.g., Montrul, 2008) as well as CPH sceptics (like Moyer, 2013, 2014) agree.…”

“…Whether younger starters eventually surpass later starters in the same way as naturalistic L2 learners are generally observed to do has also been investigated—and seems not to be the case. For instance, Pfenninger and Singleton (2019) gathered cross‐sectional data from 636 secondary‐school students and longitudinal data from a further 200 learners, who had all learned Standard German and French in primary school, but only half of whom had had English from 3rd grade (age 8) onward, the remainder having started English 5 years later in secondary school. The results showed that a number of variables—notably, intensity of instruction—are much stronger predictors than AO for a range of FL proficiency dimensions.…”

The Long‐Term Proficiency of Early, Middle, and Late Starters Learning English as a Foreign Language at School: A Narrative Review and Empirical Study

“…Empirical findings seem to tell another story, however. Review studies consistently report that later starters learn faster, and conclusions on the long‐term effects of an early start are mixed to negative (Huang, 2016; Lambelet & Berthele, 2015; Muñoz & Singleton, 2011; Pfenninger & Singleton, 2017, 2019). Pfenninger and Singleton are perhaps the most forceful critics, arguing that early‐start programs are built on a myth: “There is no real dispute about the scientific facts, which are that primary school instruction in L2 fails to equip learners with a level of L2 proficiency which by the end of secondary schooling is superior to that of those whose instruction begins later” (Singleton & Pfenninger, 2019, p. 30).…”