English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

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.

The Critical Period Hypothesis: A coat of many colours