Various studies have been largely conducted with the basis of debating on this hypothesis and the ideas that affect the critical period. Subsequently, there have been studies conducted too with a view to assessing the flaws that have surrounded this hypothesis, particularly in relation to the selective overview of the theoretical issues and empirical findings that relate to the question of the second language acquisition and a person’s age (White, 2003).
In this study, the concentration point shall be laid on the flaws that have been experienced with in relation to the ideas of the critical period effect. To achieve this, a degree of familiarity has been assumed on the familiarity of readers in connection to specific linguistic structures that relate to this hypothesis. Subsequently, it is assumed that the audience is well informed of the methodology in relation to the critical period effect.
In discussing the critical period debate, publications that have been made on the same shall form the basis of the analysis taking into consideration the availability of the concepts that have been geared towards the support for the hypothesis. For instance, according to Birdsong (2006), an understanding into the debate of critical period effect requires that brain based data and the behavior of individuals be discussed in relation to the cognitive neuro-functioning and neurocognitive aging of persons. His first argument is that there is a demonstrably different outcome in the acquisition of a second language among adults in comparison to the acquisition of the first language among children. A departure from this basic observation is what has triggered the attempts by various researchers to seek for an understanding of the age-related effects of acquiring a second language based on the hypothesis of the critical period.
According to Qingxin (2012), there is no existence of a critical/sensitive learning period for the second language. The argument