International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching
Ed. by Jordens, Peter / Roberts, Leah
4 Issues per year
IMPACT FACTOR 2017: 1.242
CiteScore 2017: 1.47
SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 0.892
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2017: 0.915
Research on age-related effects in L2 development often invokes the idea of a critical period – the postulation of which is customarily referred to as the Critical Period Hypothesis. This paper argues that to speak in terms of the Critical Period Hypothesis is misleading, since there is a vast amount of variation in the way in which the critical period for language acquisition is understood – affecting all the parameters deemed to be theoretically significant and indeed also relating to the ways in which the purported critical period is interpreted in terms of its implications for L2 instruction. The paper concludes that the very fact that there are such diverse and competing versions of the Critical Period Hypothesis of itself undermines its plausibility.
Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.