Downloaded 488 times
Uploaded byCB Khatri
My critical period hypothesis (cph)
The document discusses the critical period hypothesis in second language acquisition. The critical period hypothesis proposes that there is an ideal time period in a person's life for acquiring language skills, and that after a certain age it becomes much more difficult to acquire a new language. The document outlines the historical background of the hypothesis, provides examples of studies that both support and contradict it, and discusses ongoing debates around its claims. It ultimately concludes that while early language acquisition may confer some advantages, there is not enough evidence currently to say whether there truly is a critical period for second language learning.
My critical period hypothesis (cph)
- 1. Critical Period Hypothesis(CPH) in Second Language Acquisition (SLA) Presentation made by Chitra Bdr. Khatri Kathmandu University 03/10/2012
- 2. What is CriticalPeriod 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 in a person’s life to acquire language in a linguistically rich environment, after which further language acquisition becomes much more difficult and effortful.
- 3. CPH Contd… • Thecritical period hypothesis states that the first few years of life is the crucial time in which an individual can acquire a native language (L1) if presented with adequate stimuli. • If language input doesn't occur until after this time, the individual will never achieve a full command of language especially grammatical systems.
- 4. The Historical Background •The critical period hypothesis was first proposed by Montreal neurologist Wilder Penfield and co-author Lamar Roberts in 1959. • Popularized by Eric Lenneberg in 1967 with his famous book Biological Foundations of Language.
- 5. Historical Background Contd… •Lenneberg proposed that brain lateralisation (the longitudinal fissure that separates the brain into two distinct cerebral hemispheres) at puberty is the mechanism which closes down the brain's ability to acquire language. • Another well-known person who supports the critical period hypothesis would be Noam Chomsky, who believes that children are born with an inherited ability to learn any human language.
- 6. History of CPHContd… • Chomsky: every child has a ‘language acquisition device’ or LAD which encodes the major principles of a language and its grammatical structures into the child’s brain. • Lenneberg: there are maturational constraints on the time a first language can be acquired. • If language acquisition does not occur by puberty, some aspects of language can be learnt but full mastery cannot be achieved.
- 7. One Test relatedto CPH in SLA • Tested by comparing the English proficiency attained by 46 native Korean or Chinese speakers arrived in the US between the ages of 3 and 39, and who had lived in the US between 3 and 26 years by the time of testing. • Tested on a wide variety of structures of English grammar, using a grammaticality judgment task.
- 8. Outcome of theExperiment • Test analyses demonstrated a clear and strong advantage for earlier arrivals over the later arrivals. • Test performance was linearly related to age of arrival up to puberty. • After puberty performance was low but highly variable and unrelated to age of arrival.
- 9. Outcome Contd… • Thisage effect was shown not to be an inadvertent result of differences in amount of experience with English, motivation, self- consciousness, or American identification. • The effect also appeared on every grammatical structure tested. • The results support the conclusion that a critical period for language acquisition extends its effects to second language acquisition.
- 10.
- 11. The story ofGenie, a thirteen year girl, who was a victim of child abuse. Genie was a thirteen-year-old victim of lifelong child abuse. She had been kept strapped to a potty chair and wearing diapers. She appeared to be entirely without language when she was found at he age of 13. Her father had judged her retarded at birth and had chosen to isolate her, and so she had remained until her discovery. It was an ideal opportunity to test the theory of CHP on her. The experiment proved that she was unable to acquire language completely.
- 12. Isabella under trainingand care Isabelle, a girl, who was incarcerated with her deaf-mute mother until the age of six and a half (pre-pubescent). She also had no language skill, but unlike Genie, she quickly acquired normal language abilities through systematic specialist training.
- 13. Supports in Favourand Against of the CHP
- 14. Supports in favourof the CPH: • Loss of neural plasticity in the brain with age. • Loss of access to the language learning faculty. • Maladaptive gain of processing capacity with maturation. • A "use it then lose it" philosophy and a "use it or lose it" philosophy. • The idea that learning inhibits learning. • Study on native Korean and Chinese speakers found that the earlier (in age) that the non-native English speakers had come to the US, the better their English proficiency was. Also, speakers who had arrived prior to puberty had the highest levels of proficiency.
- 15. Supports against theCPH • Krashen's Theories of language acquisition provide alternate hypotheses to explain second language acquisition. (He discussed five different hypotheses: natural order, acquisition/learning, monitor, input and affective filter) • Statements supporting CPH misinterpret the facts and, in turn, ignore the findings that older learners acquire a second language more quickly and efficiently.
- 16. Supports against theCHP Contd… • The idea that neurological differences in children and adults are misattributed to differences in second language acquisition and proficiency. • Although it is understood that these differences exist, there is not substantial proofs that they cause differences in second language acquisition.
- 17. Support against theCHP Contd… • Undeserved emphasis on unsuccessful adult second language learners, and too little emphasis on older learners who achieve native level proficiency in a second language. • Problems in second language testing. • The role of the learning environment. • The role of learner motivation.
- 18. Conclusition • My belief:after reviewing data on both sides of the controversy, I believe that critical period in second language acquisition is not relevant to proficiency level attainment. • Though I explained some studies in favour of the existence of CPH, I think that there are too many variables with strong factual support that explain second language acquisition differences in learners, and too few factual explanations of the critical period theory to warrant its belief. • However, due to the relatively recent forays into explaining cognition neurologically, it is possible that future research could yield more substantial support for the critical period hypothesis.
- 19. Conclusition Contd… • Ialso feel that the study of second language acquisition would greatly benefit from additional studies examining all possible variables that result in different second language proficiency. • Finally, it is my hope that my colleagues who wish to tackle a second language will not dissuade by the prospect of a critical period being passed, because there is just not enough factual evidence to support it at this time.
- 20. That’s all forToday! Thank you for the patience.