Critical Period
A critical period refers to a specific time in an individual's development during which they are most receptive to acquiring certain skills or knowledge. In the context of language acquisition, it is believed that there is a critical period during childhood when individuals are most adept at learning languages, and that this ability diminishes with age. This concept has significant implications for language education and bilingualism.
7 Key excerpts on "Critical Period"
eBook - ePubIntroducing Second Language Acquisition
Perspectives and Practices
- Kirsten M. Hummel(Author)
- 2020(Publication Date)
- Wiley-Blackwell(Publisher)
...1): … the CPH states that there is a limited developmental period during which it is possible to acquire a language, be it L1 or L2, to normal, nativelike levels. Once this window of opportunity is passed, however, the ability to learn language declines. As a number of researchers have pointed out (e.g. Long 1993), the notion of the Critical Period does not stipulate that adult learners cannot reach very high levels of L2 proficiency; rather, it predicts that beyond a certain age, learners cannot reach native speaker levels of proficiency. There have been a number of proposed explanations for the notion of a Critical Period in second language acquisition. Lenneberg (1967) proposed that the cause of the change was the brain's cerebral lateralization, a process in which a number of cognitive activities become localized to one or the other of the brain's two hemispheres. Language functions become lateralized to the left hemisphere of the brain in most individuals. Lenneberg associated lateralization of the brain, which he believed began at around two years of age and was completed around the age of puberty, with the Critical Period timeframe. However, other researchers have argued (e.g. Krashen 1973) that lateralization appears to be completed much earlier than puberty. lateralization Process by which cognitive functions (e.g. language) become localized to one or the other of the brain's hemispheres. An increasingly widespread view is that age differences are the result of biologically based maturational constraints. Studies that have attempted to verify other explanations such as amount of exposure to the target language, or sociopsychological variables such as attitude and motivation, have not provided strong support. One view within this maturational perspective considers that language acquisition skill is genetically based and once it has been used in the acquisition of a first language it is lost, since it constitutes an unnecessary burden...
- David Birdsong, David Birdsong(Authors)
- 1999(Publication Date)
- Routledge(Publisher)
...But we entertain the proposition that there may be one or more Critical Periods for one or more elements of what is folk-psychologically called Language: That, for example, there may be a CP for syntax or for phonology, or that different CPs may affect different theory-defined areas of, for example, syntax at different times. (We return to the question of linguistic modularity when we look at claims for a CP in native language acquisition.) What Is a Critical Period? Our other variable is the term Critical Period itself. The general literature on second language acquisition (L2A), such as Larsen-Freeman and Long (1991) or Ellis (1994), is not too helpful here, usually just saying something about relative ease or difficulty of language learning before or after some point, usually the beginning of puberty, perhaps as a result of loss of brain plasticity, itself perhaps a consequence of lateralization, and so forth. We need to be rather more precise as to what sort of phenomena might be relevant to the concept of CP. First of all, of course we are talking about a physiological phenomenon that implicates some aspect of the central nervous system (CNS) during the course of development. More specifically, CPs for us involve an interaction between some innately given part of the CNS and input from the periphery. For example, although the development of visual cognition in primates involves brain mechanisms laid down during the prenatal genesis of the neural architecture (Rakic, 1991) as well as exposure to optic stimuli, that exposure must take place within a rather narrow slice of time, a Critical Period (see, e.g., Marler, 1991)...
eBook - ePub- Lourdes Ortega(Author)
- 2014(Publication Date)
- Routledge(Publisher)
...Their ideas quickly became influential in a time when the new field called SLA was emerging. These authors contributed neurolinguistic data supporting a natural predisposition in the child's brain for learning the first language, together with anecdotal observations that children were also adept foreign language learners, when compared to adults. The possible causes tentatively identified at the time were the loss of plasticity undergone by human brains by year nine of life (Penfield and Roberts, 1959) or perhaps the completion by the onset of puberty of the process of lateralization, the specialization in all right-handed individuals of the left brain hemisphere for language functions (Lenneberg, 1967). The hypothesis of a Critical Period for L1 acquisition, and as a corollary for L2 acquisition, seemed natural in the late 1960s and continues to be considered plausible today. Indeed, Critical Periods have been established for several phenomena in animal behaviour and in the development of certain human faculties, such as vision. The hypothesis is that there is a specific period of time early in life when the brain exhibits a special propensity to attend to certain experiences in the environment (for example, language) and learn from them. That is, the brain is pre-programmed to be shaped by that experience in dramatic ways, but only if it occurs within a biologically specified time period. To be more precise, two different kinds of age-related periods for learning are typically distinguished: critical and sensitive. Knudsen (2004) offers useful illustrations of both cases from outside the SLA field, which are summarized in Table 2.1. In much of the SLA literature, nevertheless, the terms ‘Critical Period’ and ‘sensitive period’ are discussed as essentially synonymous...
eBook - ePubChild Language
Acquisition and Development
- Matthew Saxton(Author)
- 2017(Publication Date)
- SAGE Publications Ltd(Publisher)
...The following conclusion seems reasonable, therefore: The development of neural architecture dedicated to native language grammar, lexicon and processing is a clearly biological characteristic of typical human growth during the first few years of life that presents the onset and peak of sensitivity of a representative Critical Period. (Herschensohn, 2007: 226) However, this chapter has revealed that there is still a great deal we need to confirm, before we can fully accept Lenneberg’s original proposal. The perfect Critical Period experiment is beyond our grasp, while the evidence that is at our disposal is either incomplete or inadequate, or both. What good evidence we do have is at least consistent with the idea that Critical Periods exist in first language acquisition for both phonology and syntax. Future research on brain functioning and brain development, together with more substantial behavioural data, will surely provide us with more decisive evidence on Critical Periods for language. In a Nutshell Critical Periods in development are biologically determined. The effects of the environment on development are especially strong during the Critical Period and have a much weaker effect once the Critical Period has ended. The Critical Period is like a ‘window of opportunity’ for development. If development does not take place during this period, it may not be possible at all thereafter. Environmental deprivation has its strongest effects during the Critical Period...
eBook - ePubSign Languages
Structures and Contexts
- Joseph Hill, Diane Lillo-Martin, Sandra Wood(Authors)
- 2018(Publication Date)
- Routledge(Publisher)
...Finally, we will briefly review some research on the learning of the written version of a spoken language by Deaf signers. 6.1 The Critical Period hypothesis It is important to set the stage for this chapter by reviewing a hypothesis about language development that has been very influential and important. It is often observed that young children are much better language learners than adults are. Children can even pick up multiple languages with ease, as long as there is sufficient accessible input and others to use the languages with. In addition, if children experience a brain injury that affects their language, they seem to be better at regaining linguistic abilities than are adults who have a similar experience. On the basis of such observations, it has been hypothesized that there is a “Critical Period,” or a special window of opportunity, during which language can be acquired easily. After the Critical Period is over, language development becomes more difficult, possibly because different mental resources must be used. While this hypothesis is well known, there are many questions about some of the details. For example, is the end of the Critical Period at puberty, as some have claimed, or does it actually close much earlier? Is there a difference between learning a first language versus learning a second language after the Critical Period? And since language learning after the Critical Period does not seem to be impossible (at least in most cases), what part of the language acquisition process does the Critical Period actually affect? It is impossible to fully address these questions if the only data come from hearing people learning spoken languages. A scientist would want to test the hypothesis by withholding language input from children until they reach different ages, to see how their language develops after one, three, five, or ten years of deprivation (for example)...
eBook - ePubApplied Child Study
A Developmental Approach
- Anthony D. Pellegrini, David F. Bjorklund(Authors)
- 1998(Publication Date)
- Psychology Press(Publisher)
...Thus, although speaking two languages proficiently may be better than speaking one, it is likely not true that it is as easy to learn two languages as it is to learn one. However, it is true that if two languages are going to be learned, the earlier the better. The obvious pedagogical implications for this is that we should introduce children to a second language (whether it be English of Japanese) early and not wait for formal instruction to begin after the language-learning process becomes laborious. IS THERE A Critical Period FOR LEARNING LANGUAGE? We would not be thought to be making a profound statement if we were to say that adults learn most things more easily than children. Children’s cognitive limitations make it impossible for them to learn some things and others are learned only after much repetition. Yet, as we’ve just seen in our description of second-language learning, language seems to be an exception. Children are better at acquiring both first and second languages than are adults, and this has caused some people to propose that children are especially prepared by biology to learn language and that there is a Critical Period beyond which language acquisition becomes difficult (Lenneberg, 1966). Locke (1993) stated that there are four types of evidence for a Critical Period for language acquisition. First, there is the evidence we cited earlier concerning the relation between age and secondlanguage learning. Eventual proficiency of both phonology and syntax is greater the younger children begin learning the second language. Second, there are cases of people who were socially deprived or isolated early in life and who, as a result, are able to develop only a tenuous mastery of syntax (Curtiss, 1977). A third source of evidence comes from differences in proficiency in sign language in the deaf as a function when children were first exposed to sign language...
eBook - ePub- Yasuhiro Shirai(Author)
- 2018(Publication Date)
- Routledge(Publisher)
...4 THE Critical Period HYPOTHESIS The issue of maturational constraints has been one of the most widely debated issues in language acquisition (Birdsong, 1999; Johnson & Newport, 1989; Hartshorne, Tenenbaum, & Pinker, 2018; Lenneberg, 1967; Long, 1990). This chapter reviews connectionist research that has addressed the issue of Critical Period hypothesis—the hypothesis that, in the acquisition of language, achievement of the native-level proficiency will become impossible after a certain time point. This hypothesis applies to both first and second language acquisition. If, for example, one is deprived of naturally occurring input during the period when native language is expected to develop, it becomes impossible to acquire it at the native level. The case in point would be incomplete acquisition of the native language as a result of deprivation of language in childhood, such as the cases of Genie (Curtiss, 1977) or deaf children who were not exposed to sign language at young age (Newport, 1990). 1 In SLA, the hypothesis is that it is impossible to attain native-level proficiency for adult L2 learners (see Long, 1990 for review). The hypothesis has been controversial and received much attention in the field (Birdsong, 1999; Bongaerts, Planken, & Schils, 1995; Flege, Yeni-Komshian, & Liu, 1999; Hakuta, Bialystok, & Wiley, 2003; Ioup, Boustagui, El Tigi, & Moselle, 1994; Johnson & Newport, 1989; Newport, 1990). It has been controversial both at the level of description (Is there a Critical Period in language learning?) and of explanation (If so, why?). Obviously, most of the research on the Critical Period hypothesis has been conducted using human data. However, some connectionist models have important implications for the Critical Period hypothesis, in particular with regard to the issue of explanation...
