One of the arguments against the Critical Period Hypothesis is that older learners are generally faster learners than younger ones in the initial learning stages. What are your thoughts about this argument. Do you have any anecdotal evidence in support of this argument?
EVIDENCE FROM NEUROSCIENCE
The article argues that "(1) differences in brain activation (through FMRI) do not account for differences in proficiency; (2) different localizations of L1 and L2 can lead to similar learning outcomes; (3) same localization can lead different learning outcomes" is evidence against the Critical Period Hypothesis. Is this a strong enough evidence?
WHAT IS AGE?
Do you think differences in the conceptualization of "age" account for differences among various viewpoints about age and acquisition. What surrogate variables are used to represent "age" in SLA research?
PROBLEMS IN TESTING
Were the testing problems (native accent; native judges; and reading task in opaque writing systems) raised in the article valid?
ROLE OF THE ENVIRONMENT
"Children may attain high levels of proficiency in their L2 at the expense of their L1 and older learners retain their L1 at the expense of their L2." Is this a strong enough evidence against the Critical Period Hypothesis? Is it a logical fallacy?
ROLE OF MOTIVATION
How does motivation differ between children and adults? How can we boost learners' motivation?