What are the implications of critical period hypothesis?
The major implication of the critical period hypothesis is that language learning can only occur (with the end goal of native fluency) during a few...
What is the critical period hypothesis for language development?
The critical period hypothesis for language development suggests that in order to learn a language fluently, people must start learning it before t...
What happens during the critical period?
During the critical period, children's brains have a lot of neuroplasticity. This may make them better at learning a second language with native-li...
How are adolescents more capable of learning a new language than adults?
The brain of adolescents has a higher level of neuroplasticity since they are still in the critical period.
What field of linguistics did Lenneberg play a major role in?
Biolinguistics
At university, Lenneberg studied:
Psychology
Why was Genie unable to develop native proficiency in her first language?
She didn’t have the opportunity to develop basic language skills during the critical period.
True or False? Adults are unable to develop native proficiency in a second language.
False. It is more difficult, but adults can still develop full proficiency in a second language.
True or False? Lenneberg believed language was developed through social means.
False. Lenneberg believed that the capacity for language acquisition was innate in all humans and that the learning pathways were already there.
True or False? Lenneberg believed that a spoken language environment was needed to learn a language.
True. Although he proposed that language acquisition was innate in all humans, he believed that the right environment was also necessary.
What factors determine how successful an adult is in learning a second language?
The effort put in, the time spent learning, the learning environment and their age.
What is the critical period hypothesis?
The critical period hypothesis is the subject of a long-standing debate in linguistics and language acquisition over the extent to which the ability to acquire language is biologically linked to age. The hypothesis claims that there is an ideal ‘window’ of time to acquire language in a linguistically rich environment, ...
Who first proposed the critical period hypothesis?
The critical period hypothesis was first proposed by Montreal neurologist Wilder Penfield and co-author Lamar Roberts in a 1959 paper Speech and Brain Mechanisms, and was popularised by Eric Lenneberg in 1967 with Biological Foundations of Language.
What is the strongest evidence for the critical period hypothesis?
In second language acquisition, the strongest evidence for the critical period hypothesis is in the study of accent, where most older learners do not reach a native-like level. However, under certain conditions, native-like accent has been observed, suggesting that accent is affected by multiple factors, such as identity and motivation, ...
Why is the critical period not an adaptation?
However, while arguing that language itself is adaptive and “did not ‘just happen’” (p.172), Hurford suggests that the critical period is not an adaptation, but rather a constraint on language that emerged due to a lack of selection pressures that reinforce acquiring more than one language. In other words, Hurford explains the existence of a critical period with genetic drift, the idea that when there are no selection pressures on multiple alleles acting on the same trait, one of the alleles will gradually diminish through evolution. Because the simulation reveals no evolutionary advantage of acquiring more than one language, Hurford suggests that the critical period evolved simply as a result of a lack of selection pressure.
What is the term for when language acquisition does not occur by puberty?
This was called the “critical period hypothesis.”. An interesting example of this is the case of Genie.
Who developed the CP theory?
This assumption stems from ‘critical period’ (CP) ideas. A CP was popularised by Eric Lenneberg in 1967 for L1 acquisition, but considerable interest now surrounds age effects on second language acquisition (SLA). SLA theories explain learning processes and suggest causal factors for a possible CP for SLA, mainly attempting to explain apparent ...
Is second language learning subject to biological critical periods?
On reviewing the published material, Bialystok and Hakuta (1994) conclude that second-language learning is not necessarily subject to biological critical periods, but “on average, there is a continuous decline in ability [to learn] with age.”
What is the critical period hypothesis for L2 learning?
A prominent account is the critical period hypothesis stating that L2 learning will be faster and more successful in children than in adults (e.g., DeKeyser, 2000; Johnson & Newport, 1989; Lenneberg, 1967) due to a progressive loss in neural plasticity that culminates around puberty. Based on a dataset of 2/3 million native and non-native English speakers, Hartshorne, Tenenbaum, and Pinker (2018) support the notion of a sharply-defined critical period for language acquisition, and argue that the age of offset is even later than previously speculated, namely at 17.4 years old. Although the notion of a critical period is disputed (e.g., Birdsong, 2018; Hakuta, Bialystok, & Wiley, 2003; Mayberry & Kluender, 2018 ), researchers generally agree on an age-related decline in L2 learning and ultimate attainment of L2 proficiency.
What is the central part of the hypothesis?
The central part of the hypothesis is that there is a period of readiness during which limited input is sufficient for complete development and a corollary that no amount of input outside the period is sufficient for normal development.
Is the critical period hypothesis more difficult in women than in rats?
Investigation of the critical period hypothesis is more difficult in women than in rats, but the limited results thus far provide both positive and negative data ( Sherwin, 2012; Maki et al., 2011; Maki, 2013; Grodstein, 2013 ). One older study evaluated women who had undergone bilateral oophorectomy prior to the onset of natural menopause and had either used or never used estrogen replacement therapy (ET) until age 50 ( Rocca et al., 2007 ). The never use group had an increased risk of cognitive impairment or dementia 30 years later as compared with referent women while users had no increased risk of cognitive impairment or dementia which suggests that ET initiated immediately following a surgical menopause for several years has an enduring effect 30 years later. In another study, young (ages 50–62) and older (ages 70–81) postmenopausal women, who received estradiol or placebo for three months, were administered a cholinergic challenge and tested for verbal memory and attention ( Dumas et al., 2008 ). Estradiol pretreatment significantly attenuated the drug-induced impairments only in the younger group which supports the concept of a critical period. Bagger et al. (2005) also found that treatment with ET for 2 to 3 years around menopause decreased risk of cognitive impairments 5–15 years later by 64% as compared with those who received placebo. Thus, these findings support the idea that 2–3 years of ET, initiated closely in time to the menopause may confer enduring cognitive protection. In contrast, results of other studies have not supported the critical period hypothesis, and it is notable that CEE was utilized in most. Espeland et al. (2013), from the WHIMSY Study Group, gave additional cognitive testing to selected women in the WHI trial who were closer to menopause, aged 50–55, than other WHI participants when they received CEE HRT. The women received HRT for 7 years and were tested approximately 7.2 years after cessation of HRT, at approximately 67 years of age. For the primary outcome, cognitive function and the secondary outcomes of verbal memory, attention, executive function, verbal fluency and working memory, there was no benefit or any increased risk. Hogervorst and Bandelow (2010) performed a meta-analysis of 36 randomized treatment trials (various estrogen formulations) and found that neither age of the women nor duration of time elapsed when treatment was initiated since menopause significantly affected the cognitive outcome. Outcomes in the Kronos Early Estrogen Prevention Study (KEEPS) which randomized postmenopausal women from 42 to 59 years to low dose oral or transdermal estradiol (as compared to CEE in the WHI trials) combined with progesterone or placebo for up to 4 years is awaited ( Wharton et al., 2013 ). It is notable that results for coronary heart disease are consistent with the critical period hypothesis as the WHI provided initial indication of decreased heart disease risk in younger women, and other studies show decreased total myocardial infarction risk and significant reductions in atherosclerosis progression with CEE treatment ( Grodstein, 2013 ). Thus, whether there is a critical period in women for estradiol's enduring maintenance of cognitive function awaits verification by ongoing and future studies.
What is the CPH hypothesis?
Tom Scovel writes, “The CPH [critical period hypothesis] is conceivably the most contentious issue in SLA because there is disagreement over its exact age span; people disagree strenuously over which facets of language are affected; there are competing explanations for its existence; and, to top it off, many people don’t believe it exists at all” (113). Proposed by Wilder Penfield and Lamar Roberts in 1959, the Critical Period Hypothesis (CPH) argues that there is a specific period of time in which people can learn a language without traces of the L1 (a so-called “foreign” accent or even L1 syntactical features) manifesting in L2 production (Scovel 48). If a learner’s goal is to sound “native,” there may be age-related limitations or “maturational constraints” as Kenneth Hyltenstam and Niclas Abrahamsson call them, on how “native” they can sound. Reducing the impression left by the L1 is certainly possible after puberty, but eliminating that impression entirely may not be possible.
When should instructors take the CPH into account?
Instructors should consider taking the CPH into account when assessing their students’ oral communication in the target language. When “maturational constraints” are a potential concern, it seems more fair for instructors to weight comprehension more heavily than nativeness. A thorough understanding of the CPH can also help instructors to counteract adult learners’ “self-handicapping” by helping the learners understand that, in spite of constraints due to aging, they are still capable of acquiring many–if not most–aspects of the target language.
What is the critical period hypothesis?
The critical period hypothesis is the subject of a long-standing debate in linguistics and language acquisition over the extent to which the ability to acquire language is biologically linked to age. The hypothesis claims that there is an ideal time window to acquire language in a linguistically rich environment, ...
Who first proposed the critical period hypothesis?
The critical period hypothesis was first proposed by Montreal neurologist Wilder Penfield and co-author Lamar Roberts in their 1959 book Speech and Brain Mechanisms, and was popularized by Eric Lenneberg in 1967 with Biological Foundations of Language.
Why is the critical period not an adaptation?
172), Hurford suggests that the critical period is not an adaptation, but rather a constraint on language that emerged due to a lack of selection pressures that reinforce acquiring more than one language. In other words, Hurford explains the existence of a critical period with genetic drift, the idea that when there are no selection pressures on multiple alleles acting on the same trait, one of the alleles will gradually diminish through evolution. Because the simulation reveals no evolutionary advantage of acquiring more than one language, Hurford suggests that the critical period evolved simply as a result of a lack of selection pressure.
What is the critical period of language?
The discussion of language critical period is complicated by the subjectivity of determining native-like competence in language, which includes things like pronunciation, prosody, syllable stress, timing and articulatory setting. Some aspects of language, such as phoneme tuning, grammar processing, articulation control, and vocabulary acquisition have weak critical periods and can be significantly improved by training at any age. Other aspects of language, such as prefrontal synthesis, have strong critical periods and cannot be acquired after the end of the critical period.
Does Lenneberg's CP hypothesis add to Lenneberg's CP hypothesis?
Their study thus provides direct evidence for language learning ability decreasing with age, but it does not add to Lenneberg's CP hypothesis as even the oldest children, the 'late learners', were exposed to ASL by age four, and had therefore not reached puberty, the proposed end of the C P.
Is a CP a viable hypothesis?
Despite concerns with Lenneberg's original evidence and the dissociation of lateralisation from the language CP idea, however, the concept of a CP remains a viable hypothesis, which later work has better explained and substantiated.
Does the critical period hypothesis apply to SLA?
Some writers have argued that the critical period hypothesis does not apply to SLA, and that second-language proficiency is determined by the time and effort put into the learning process, and not the learner's age. Robertson (2002) harvtxt error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFRobertson2002 ( help) observed that factors other than age may be even more significant in successful second-language learning, such as personal motivation, anxiety, input and output skills, and the learning environment. A combination of these factors often leads to individual variation in second-language acquisition experiences.
What is critical period hypothesis?
In second language acquisition research, the critical period hypothesis (cph) holds that the function between learners' age and their susceptibility to second language input is non-linear. This paper revisits the indistinctness found in the literature with regard to this hypothesis's scope and predictions. Even when its scope is clearly delineated and its predictions are spelt out, however, empirical studies–with few exceptions–use analytical (statistical) tools that are irrelevant with respect to the predictions made. This paper discusses statistical fallacies common in cphresearch and illustrates an alternative analytical method (piecewise regression) by means of a reanalysis of two datasets from a 2010 paper purporting to have found cross-linguistic evidence in favour of the cph. This reanalysis reveals that the specific age patterns predicted by the cphare not cross-linguistically robust. Applying the principle of parsimony, it is concluded that age patterns in second language acquisition are not governed by a critical period. To conclude, this paper highlights the role of confirmation bias in the scientific enterprise and appeals to second language acquisition researchers to reanalyse their old datasets using the methods discussed in this paper. The data and R commands that were used for the reanalysis are provided as supplementary materials.
What is the critical period for language acquisition?
Lenneberg's critical period stretched from two years of age to puberty (which he posits at about 14 years of age) [2], whereas other scholars have drawn the cutoff point at 12, 15, 16 or 18 years of age [6]. Unlike Lenneberg, most researchers today do not define a starting age for the critical period for language learning. Some, however, consider the possibility of the critical period (or a critical period for a specific language area, e.g. phonology) ending much earlier than puberty (e.g. age 9 years [1], or as early as 12 months in the case of phonology [7]).
Is Ualevels off after puberty?
In Johnson and Newport's specific case [23], their correlation-based inference that ualevels off after puberty happened to be largely correct: the gjtscores are more or less randomly distributed around a near-horizontal trend line [26]. Ultimately, however, it rests on the fallacy of confusing correlation coefficients with slopes, which seriously calls into question conclusions such as DeKeyser's (cf. the quote above).
What is the Critical Period Hypothesis?
The “critical period hypothesis” (CPH) is a claim that there is a specific age range where people are better able to acquire languages. It’s based on the observation that children are exceptional at language acquisition while adults often struggle and fail learning languages. The age range of the critical period hypothesis varies with 10 – 13 years being the final years where children can easily learn languages. After that age, this learning ability declines. Statistics show that this happens to teens until they reach adulthood.
How Can Understanding the Critical Period Hypothesis Help You?
Scientists don’t entirely know whether or not this critical period hypothesis is correct, despite its initial inception 50 years ago. As it continues to remain a debatable theory, the important aspect of the theory to remember is how it affects your journey to fluency in your target language.
What is the principal argument of the critical period hypothesis?
A principal argument of the critical period hypothesis focuses on the ability to speak. Children don’t have accents while many adults do. Learning a language after the critical age means you most likely will have an accent. Accents are essential as they can influence the ability of native speakers to comprehend you.
Can you learn a language with a critical period hypothesis?
Either way, it’s important to note that ability doesn’t equal determination. You can still learn a language successfully. Knowing about the critical period hypothesis just helps you navigate your options.
