In his fundamental work, “Biological Foundations of Language”, the biolinguist Eric Lenneberg presents, among other things, his “Critical period” hypothesis. It consists, roughly, in the idea that a certain age is appropriate for learning a language, so that it is impossible to achieve full competence before or after it. In this essay, I will focus on the second borderline, which is usually drawn by later interpreters at the beginning of puberty – the reasonability of this will be discussed in the next chapter of this essay.
Lenneberg subdivides the ongoing process of lateralization into five levels: an infant up to 20 months has identical hemispheres without functional differences; a toddler up to 36 months develops a preference for either the right or the left hand, but the responsibility for language still can easily switch an other hemisphere; a child up to 10 years is still able to reactivate language functions in the right hemisphere; in the early puberty – up to 14 years – the equipotentiality rapidly declines, and after that it is lost completely. Lenneberg talks about a “reactivation”, not “creation” of the language function in the right hemisphere. He thereby implies that at the beginning this function is present in both hemispheres and later (partly) disappears from the right one; it does not develop in the left half of the brain only right from the start (with the option to migrate to the other hemisphere in emergency cases during the childhood). According to later studies, he was right in this point; apparently, he even overrated the monopolistic role of the left hemisphere as he wrote that in about 97% of the entire population language is definitely lateralized to the left (p. 181). He wrote the “Biological Foundations…” in 1967, ten years before the Russian scientists Balanov, Deglin and Chernigowskaya proved experimentally that every hemisphere contains certain speech ability: they caused a temporary aphasia of one hemisphere in healthy persons and detected that people with a blocked hemisphere were able to talk – even if it was the left one. In that case the used vocabulary shrunk, the test persons spoke very little, in short simple sentences, and only about concrete, visible objects, whereas persons with the right hemisphere blocked became very talkative, fantasized, used complicated grammatical constructions and a lot of abstract terms.
Inhaltsverzeichnis (Table of Contents)
- Introduction to the critical period theory
- When does the critical period start and finish?
- Russian accent in immigrants to Germany
- Reference to Lenneberg
- Conclusion
Zielsetzung und Themenschwerpunkte (Objectives and Key Themes)
This essay examines Eric Lenneberg's Critical Period Hypothesis, focusing on the upper age limit for native-like language acquisition. It explores the ambiguity surrounding the definition of this period and investigates the evidence presented by Lenneberg regarding the relationship between brain lateralization, puberty, and language learning.
- Lenneberg's Critical Period Hypothesis
- The ambiguity of the critical period's boundaries
- Brain lateralization and its role in language acquisition
- The impact of age on language learning ability
- Limitations of Lenneberg's research and potential for further study
Zusammenfassung der Kapitel (Chapter Summaries)
Introduction to the critical period theory: This chapter introduces Lenneberg's Critical Period Hypothesis, which posits that there's an optimal age range for language acquisition, beyond which full competence is difficult to achieve. Lenneberg's work, "Biological Foundations of Language," is central, focusing on brain lateralization as a key factor influencing this period. The essay focuses specifically on the upper boundary of this period, often considered to be the onset of puberty. The chapter lays the groundwork for the subsequent analysis of the vagueness surrounding the precise timeframe of this critical period and the supporting arguments provided by Lenneberg.
When does the critical period start and finish?: This chapter delves into the ambiguity surrounding the precise boundaries of Lenneberg's critical period. Lenneberg himself offers varying age ranges throughout his work, sometimes mentioning ages as young as four and as old as fourteen or even twenty-one, depending on the context (recovery from aphasia, primary language acquisition, etc.). The author highlights the inherent variability of puberty and the imprecise language used by Lenneberg (e.g., "around," "usually," "quickly"). The chapter concludes by acknowledging the inherent limitations of Lenneberg's statements but emphasizes the wide range (8-21 years) suggested by his work. The author proposes the need for further research to define the critical period more precisely. The relative lack of precision in Lenneberg’s work is highlighted, with the author noting that Lenneberg does not clearly state whether his references to age relate to the commencement or the completion of language acquisition.
Schlüsselwörter (Keywords)
Critical Period Hypothesis, language acquisition, brain lateralization, puberty, Lenneberg, age, language learning, aphasia, first language acquisition (L1), second language acquisition (L2), native-like fluency.
Frequently Asked Questions: A Critical Look at Lenneberg's Critical Period Hypothesis
What is the main topic of this text?
This text is a comprehensive overview of Eric Lenneberg's Critical Period Hypothesis (CPH) for language acquisition. It examines the hypothesis, focusing specifically on the upper age limit for achieving native-like fluency, and explores the ambiguities and limitations within Lenneberg's work.
What are the key themes explored in this text?
The key themes include: Lenneberg's CPH itself; the ambiguous definition and boundaries of the critical period; the role of brain lateralization in language acquisition; the impact of age on language learning ability; and the limitations of Lenneberg's research, suggesting avenues for further study. The text particularly emphasizes the lack of precision in Lenneberg's age ranges for the critical period.
What is Lenneberg's Critical Period Hypothesis?
Lenneberg's CPH posits that there is an optimal age range for language acquisition, after which achieving native-like fluency becomes significantly more difficult. This optimal period is linked to brain lateralization and the onset of puberty.
What is the ambiguity surrounding the critical period's boundaries?
Lenneberg himself provides varying age ranges in his work, sometimes mentioning ages as young as four and as old as fourteen or even twenty-one. The text highlights the imprecise language used by Lenneberg (e.g., "around," "usually," "quickly") and the variability of puberty itself, making it difficult to pinpoint the exact start and end of the critical period. The text emphasizes that Lenneberg did not clearly define whether his age references concerned the beginning or end of language acquisition.
What role does brain lateralization play in language acquisition according to Lenneberg?
Lenneberg's hypothesis links the critical period to brain lateralization – the specialization of the brain's hemispheres for different functions. The text suggests that changes in brain structure during puberty might influence the ability to acquire language natively.
What are the limitations of Lenneberg's research?
The text points out the lack of precision in defining the critical period's boundaries as a major limitation of Lenneberg's work. The imprecise language and varying age ranges used by Lenneberg contribute to this ambiguity, highlighting the need for further research to clarify the specifics of the CPH.
What are the chapter summaries included in the text?
The text provides summaries for each chapter, covering an introduction to the CPH, a deeper look at the ambiguous start and finish of the critical period, and a discussion of the overall implications of Lenneberg's work.
What keywords are associated with this text?
Keywords include: Critical Period Hypothesis, language acquisition, brain lateralization, puberty, Lenneberg, age, language learning, aphasia, first language acquisition (L1), second language acquisition (L2), native-like fluency.
What is the overall conclusion of the text?
The text concludes by emphasizing the need for further research to clarify the ambiguities and limitations within Lenneberg's Critical Period Hypothesis, particularly concerning the precise age range involved and the relationship between brain development, puberty and language acquisition.
- Quote paper
- Alexandra Berlina (Author), 2004, Lenneberg's Critical Period Hypothesis, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/34214
