Write a Critical Period Hypothesis is a very important discussion for the observation as it talks about the first few years of the child’s language development. In the observed student, they were exposed to English first as they attended an international school from toddler years to early childhood making it their first language (L1), but from nine years of age, they started to frequently use the language, Waray-waray, as they already understood the language from toddler to early childhood but hindered to use it as the environment they grew up in prohibited them to use it both at home and at the international school. They started to use Waray-waray more once they transferred to a Chinese school as the majority of their classmates were more adept in using Waray-waray than English. The theory on CPH is applicable to the person being observed as there was a specific period of time identified in which the student can learn a language. However, the person being observed did show negative signs upon learning their L2 due to certain circumstances. In an intermediate article of EL Newsport from the University of Rochester, the way language is encoded in the brain is likewise affected by age of exposure, with behavioral and neurological consequences being comparable. PET, fMRI, and ERP investigations all demonstrate substantial left hemisphere activity in bilinguals and monolinguals for native language processing. In the article, it connects with the student as the regions and patterns of the activation of the theory can partially or completely overlap the native language which is English. Social Situation in language usage was also noted as they had different interactions and relationships with people who use the language and dialect. This theory considers the relationship between a person’s language and their social identity. The pair would like to highlight sociolinguistics in this paper as an attempt to isolate linguistic features that are used in particular situations along with the social relationship of the participant and the significant element of the situation. Through this theory, the observed person phonetically sounded more distinct compared to other Waray-waray speakers. In terms of the Filipino language, it was much easier for the observed person to learn the language with constant practice and months of being able to develop the proficiency in Filipino. They spent 2-3 months every summer in Manila to help their grandmother on their mother’s side with their family business, this occurred in the year they transferred out from the international school. So in a sociolinguistic perspective, the student was able to interact with customers whose social class is significantly different from theirs. Furthermore, the student being observed also exhibited progress in their linguistic skills in the Filipino language when they transferred to Manila for senior high school. Opportunities to converse with peers and classmates who were also native speakers of Filipino became the person’s way to develop their proficiency in the aforementioned language. Schütz (2007) acknowledged Stephen Krashen’s hypothesis on the distinction between acquisition and learning as being two distinct systems in line with Second Language Acquisition. From the observation, it is evident that the person the students observed exhibited both natural acquisition of their first language and formal learning in a classroom setting. As the person being observed grew up, their exposure to other languages was minimal — mainly because of the prioritization of the English language as the language which should be developed — which carries significant cultural affiliations with how Filipino families prefer their children to be fluent in using the English language as opposed to other languages. Furthermore, Krashen (1981) notes that the distinction between acquisition and learning is further evident anchored with the environment the learner is in, with informal and more natural environments promoting the communicative aspect of language which is beneficial with acquisition solely, while being in formal environments promote both language acquisition and language learning. In line with this, the person being observed exhibited learning difficulties in formal environments, probable causes would be described as: (1) the age as to when they learned their L2, (2) limited prior knowledge on the basic grammatical aspects and other related linguistic concepts connected with the L2, and (3) lack of more effective teaching strategies to maintain and scaffold language learning. However, the person being observed showed substantial progress in learning Filipino as the language was much more evident and heard more by the person. Moreover, since Filipino was used by the people on their mother’s side, the person being observed was able to utilize the language as a communicative tool to apply what they have observed; being able to communicate with peers in senior high school using Filipino also helped with their proficiency in the aforementioned language. Furthermore, Howard Gile’s Communication Accommodation Theory (CAT) is applicable in the instance where the person being observed had to adjust their vocabulary level to reduce the social difference between them and their classmates. According to Jessica Gasiorek, “Superficially, the concept of communication adjustment is quite straightforward: people adapt their verbal and nonverbal behavior in context.” (Giles, 2016, Chapter 2, p. 13). The person being observed resorted to accommodate to their classmates who were more adept on using Waray-waray as opposed to English — which was the person’s L1. Furthermore, having to adjust to the language spoken by their classmates was more apparent in verbal communication to establish good relations with their classmates; leaning towards convergence in the two types of accommodation processes wherein a person would adjust to the language/language capability of the people relatively in close communication to reduce the social difference evident within a certain context (Communication Theory, n.d.).
