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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction to the critical period theory
2. When does the critical period start and finish?
3. Russian accent in immigrants to Germany
4. Reference to Lenneberg
5. Conclusion
Research Objectives and Topics
This essay explores Lenneberg's "Critical Period Hypothesis," specifically examining the age-related limitations on language acquisition and the ambiguity surrounding the onset and end of this period. Through a self-conducted phonetic study of Russian-speaking immigrants in Germany, the author investigates whether native-like competence is achievable when language learning begins after the traditional critical window.
- Theoretical examination of Lenneberg’s Biological Foundations of Language.
- Analysis of the scientific ambiguity regarding the "critical" age markers.
- Empirical study on phonetic accuracy in adult L2 learners.
- Distinction between native (L1) and foreign (L2) language acquisition processes.
- The influence of musicality and individual linguistic aptitude on language mastery.
Excerpt from the Book
Russian accent in immigrants to Germany
It is impossible to talk about language competence without further specification, so I had to decide what aspect to look at. I chose phonetics - firstly, because in this domain I can be sure that all mistakes which are made base on the unability to differ between or to perform certain sounds (unlike, for example, in the domain of language comprehension where it is sometimes very difficult to decide if misunderstandings come from gaps in the knowledge of lexics or grammar.) Secondy, Lenneberg never says that it is impossible to achieve native-like competence in lexics or grammar in L2 for a grown-up, but only that foreign accents cannot be overcome easily after puberty. Finally, I know from my own experience and many acquaintances that the accent is the last and the most difficult barrier towards native-like German for Russian emigrants who came to Germany at an age above 11-12 years old.
I composed a small text which combined most of the sounds which Russian speaking immigrants have difficulties with.
Summary of Chapters
Introduction to the critical period theory: This chapter introduces Eric Lenneberg's hypothesis regarding biological constraints on language learning and the concept of cerebral lateralization.
When does the critical period start and finish?: This section discusses the chronological ambiguity in defining the "critical period," noting that Lenneberg's own work provides varying and often imprecise age limits.
Russian accent in immigrants to Germany: The author presents an empirical study focusing on phonetic challenges faced by Russian immigrants and their ability to attain native-like pronunciation.
Reference to Lenneberg: This chapter reconciles the study's findings with Lenneberg’s theories, clarifying that his research focuses on L1 acquisition rather than the L2 acquisition examined here.
Conclusion: The author concludes that while Lenneberg's hypothesis is scientifically imprecise, it specifically pertains to natural L1 acquisition and does not necessarily preclude successful L2 learning later in life.
Keywords
Critical Period Hypothesis, Lenneberg, Language Acquisition, L2 learning, Lateralization, Phonetics, Puberty, Cerebral development, Native-like competence, Russian immigrants, Bilingualism, Biological Foundations of Language, Linguistic aptitude.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this research paper?
The paper examines the validity of Lenneberg's "Critical Period Hypothesis," specifically analyzing the scientific ambiguity regarding when language learning potential declines and whether adults can achieve native-like competence.
What are the primary thematic areas covered?
The key themes include biological foundations of brain lateralization, the definition of critical age markers, the distinction between L1 and L2 acquisition, and the specific role of phonetics in foreign language mastery.
What is the primary objective or research question?
The goal is to determine if the "critical period" for language learning is a fixed barrier and to investigate if it is possible for L2 learners to overcome phonetic hurdles after the onset of puberty.
Which scientific method does the author employ?
The author conducts a small-scale empirical study by recording Russian-speaking immigrants reading a specialized German text and using native German speakers as a control group for phonetic comparison.
What does the main body of the text address?
The main body critically reviews Lenneberg's literature, discusses the ambiguity of puberty as a milestone, and presents original experimental data regarding the pronunciation habits of Russian emigrants.
Which keywords characterize this work?
The work is characterized by terms such as Critical Period Hypothesis, L2 acquisition, cerebral lateralization, phonetic interference, and linguistic aptitude.
How does the author define the "critical period" in the context of the study?
The author views it as a controversial and loosely defined developmental phase that Lenneberg identifies primarily for L1, which the author argues should not be automatically applied to the complex process of L2 learning.
What significance does the study attribute to "musicality"?
The author suggests that individuals with high musical aptitude or intensive training in language-related fields may possess a better ability to master foreign sounds and achieve accent-free speech even at a later age.
- Citation du texte
- Alexandra Berlina (Auteur), 2004, Lenneberg's Critical Period Hypothesis, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/34214
