The Critical Period Hypothesis

Definition

A maturational period during which some experience will have its peak effect on development or learning resulting in normal behaviour attuned to the particular environment the organism has been exposed to. If exposure to this experience happens after this time, it will only have reduced or no effect. (Newport)

Critical period or critical periods?

The basic claim

- strong and weak versions

Evidence

- feral children

- child aphasia

- deaf speakers and signers

- L2 learning and acquisition

Evidence from the deaf: Chelsea

Retareded or deaf?Hearing aid, normal capacity IQ = 10 year oldWorks at a vet’s, reads, writes,

communicatesStrings of words, no syntactic structureUtterances comprehensible in context

Evidence from sign language

Native – clear advantage in the use of grammatical markers

Early starters Late starters

Evidence from neurology

Medical evidence: childhood aphasia

Right hemisphere compensates for language capacity in childhood

No such compensation in adulthood

Controversial evidence for normal exposure and brain capacity

Processing L1 and L2

L1 in both moniolinguals and bilinguals shows strong left hemisphere control

In later learners (even after 7) the active brain regions processing L2 and partially or completely non-overlapping with L1 areas

Neural organisation in late L2 is also less lateralisaed (more strategic control!!)

Onset of L1 has great influence, onset of L2 doesn’t

Even overhearing a language, but not speaking or using it or hearing it again can reult in native like control later in life

Feral children

Socialising, teaching and observing

Problems- ethical experiments?

- teacher=researcher bias

- relation between lack of language and mental + social retardation

Wild Peter (13/1724)Victor (11/1800)Kaspar Houser (16/1828)Kamala and Amala (18m., 8/1920)

Genie

Found: 13/1970 Severe social

isolation Thought to be

mentally retarded Punished for speech 20 words,

colours,”stoppit”, „nomore”

Research and socialisation

Taken into care The first year: HOPE- plural and singular nouns, - positive and negative sentences - 2/3-word sentences.

Later: slow-down Four years later- No negation- 'No' + V + Object - No proper questions

"Where is may I have a penny?"

"I where is graham cracker on top shelf?"

Chomsky- no 'movement‘( reorganise the underlying declarative sentence)

Confused her pronouns, 'you' and 'me' interchangeable

'Hello‘, 'Thank you‘ 'Stopit‘, 'Nomore' addressed to herself

Achievements

Sign language Making sense of chaos Spatial intelligence Social relations No apparent

mental retardation

Support for CPH?

Severe neglect and emotional trauma Possibility of mental retardation Right-hemisphere dominance Language not lateralised to left-hemisphere:

cause or result?

Conclusion

Is there a CPH in FLA?

- Clear neurological evidence (compensation)

- Suggestive evidence from the deaf- Feral children - inconclusive

Critical Period Hypothesis in second language learning and acquisition

CPH in SLL/SLA: Weak version

Neurological Psychomotor Cognitive Affective Linguistic Contextual

Neurological considerations

LateralisationTime

- Lenneberg: 2-puberty- Krashen: 5- Walsh & Diller: different timetables for different functions

Alternative considerations and counterevidence

Left/Right cooperation in SLA

Obler (1981): strategies of acquisition, guessing meaning, formulaic utterances

Scovel: socio-biological basis for accent in Western middle-class societies

Hill (1970), Sorenson (1967): multilingual tribes, no accent

Psychomotor considerations

Problems in accent studies - native judgement- testing isolated utterances, controlled language

Key issue: accent - depends on muscular plasticity, subject to

CP- the Henry Kissinger effect- significance? ELF

Cognitive considerations

Piaget, 1972- sharp change from concrete to formal operation at puberty

A watched pot never boils?

Equilibrium Superior cognitive capacity in adults

(Ausubel, 1964) - a watched pot never boils?

Rote and meaningful learning

Rosansky, 1975: „Problem-centred learning” of children

Csíkszentmihályi’s Flow

Affective considerations

Attitudes, beliefs, stereotypes,

Inhibition egocentrism – decentration – defending ego

Motivation- internal

- external

- integrative

- instrumental

Identity (Guiora)- face threat

- second identity

- language ego

- permeability of

language ego

Linguistic considerations

Bilingualism

- coordinate vs. compound

Strategies and processes in child L1 and L2 acquisition similar

• similar mistakes in acquisition

• acquisition order (Dulay and Burt, 1974)

• transfer is rare, creative language acquisition

• adults rely more on system of L1

Context

Learning vs. acquisition Input (motherese vs. foreigner talk) Peer pressure and group dynamics

Benefits for young learners in instructed FLL

- Accent (esp. with native speaker)- Acquisition (if rooted in activity and ample

time and + atmosphere available)- Low inhibition, communicating in L2:

natural- Natural curiosity- Little L1 influence- No preconceptions about language and culture

Drawbacks

– No (recognition of) communicative need– No reliance on reading/writing– No formal operation – Difficult to reproduce a rich „here and now”

context in classroom - Emergence of speech is to be tolerated- Difficult to demonstrate a sense of progress- Highly context and person dependent

Benefits for adults in instructed FLL

- Formal operation: grammar, vocabulary- Learn through explanation (no exposure) - L1- Previous learning strategies - Controlled motivation, goal orientation- Not strongly context dependent- Experience, beliefs might create + attitude- Faster development, better use of

instructional time

Drawbacks

- Too much reliance on the rational mind- Monitoring- Low tolerance of ambiguity - No or little involvement of affect- Inhibitions, L2 ego- Previous experience, attitudes- Accent - L1, L2, etc.