Although
Eric Lenneberg (1967) is considered as father of the idea of Critical Period Hypothesis
and the one who popularized this phenomenon, Penfield and Roberts (1959) are
the one who proposed the same. In the beginning of their studies, these two neurosurgeons
were exploring the neuroscience of language, concluding that it was dominant in
the left hemisphere of the brain. Penfield and Roberts’ research was focused on
the linguistic performance of individuals with brain damage, rather than on
linguistic performance of ‘normal’ individuals. Repeating Chomsky’s fact that
all children are not born as tabula rasa or in other words no human being is
born without any real innate language ability, Penfield and Roberts added the
fact that children up to the age of nine can learn three languages thanks to
the human’s ability to learn languages. The early children exposure to
languages activates a kind of reflex in their brain which helps them to switch
one language with another without the need to translate the same into their
native language. Lenneberg supports the theory given by Penfield and Roberts,
felling free to develop the hypothesis for the critical period, and claiming
that the critical period for language acquisition ends around puberty and after
this period the acquisition of the first language will be impossible. He
accepted the Penfield and Roberts’s ideas that neurological mechanisms are
responsible for the maturation change in the language learning abilities,
connecting the same with the brain lateralization and left hemispherical
specialization for language around thirteen.
According to Lenneberg up to the
age of thirteen the language learning functions are present in both
hemispheres. Later or more accurate at the beginning of the puberty the
cerebral functions of the hemispheres separate, and make the language
acquisition very difficult. With his
studies Lenneberg is pointing out on the idea that there are certain ages that
are appropriate for learning a language, somehow demonstrating the existence of the Critical Period Hypothesis and the difficulty to acquire a
second language during and after it.
thank you very much ^^love from Algeria
ReplyDeleteYou are welcome :-)
Deletethis is very helpful and informative.. thank you
ReplyDeletethis is very helpful and informative.. thank you
ReplyDeleteIn reality there is no CP for additional language learning. Here are the arguments in case you are interested:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.academia.edu/27426121/A_Polyglots_Perspective_on_the_Age_Factor_in_Foreign_Language_Acquistion
I agree! As you can see this is an old article. A year and a half ago I made a research on 119 learners of English as a second language, as part of my MA thesis, and the ultimate results disproved the existence of the CPH for second language acquisition.
ReplyDeleteI agree! As you can see this is an old article. A year and a half ago I made a research on 119 learners of English as a second language, as part of my MA thesis, and the ultimate results disproved the existence of the CPH for second language acquisition.
ReplyDeleteHow do i cite this post?
ReplyDeleteThis post has helped me a lot, i want to cite this. If you could pls tell the date or at least the year of publication of this post I'd be able to cite this in apa format. Thank you.
ReplyDelete