The Critical Period Hypothesis Supported by Genie's …
The Critical Period Hypothesis ..
The critical period hypothesis is associated with , whose 1956 Vanuxem lectures at formed the basis of his 1959 work with , . Penfield and Roberts explored the of language, concluding that it was dominant in the left hemisphere of the brain on the basis of hundreds of case studies spanning many decades. The review focussed on how individuals with brain damage evidenced atypical linguistic performance, rather than examining neurotypical cases of 'normal' language acquisition, and the authors' conclusions were also based on the prevailing view that children were born without any real language ability; however, linguistic "units", once "fixed", would affect later learning. Their recommendations for language schooling recommended starting early in order to avoid fixed effects; though these claims did not form the core of the book, being confined to the last chapter, other researchers and popular opinion were much-influenced by them. The hypothesis was developed by in his 1967 , which set the end of the critical period for native language acquisition at 12. The hypothesis has been fiercely debated since then, and has continued to inform popular assumptions about the presumed (in)ability of to learn a second language.
of Lenneberg′s Critical Period Hypothesis, ..
The CPH as applied to first language acquisition proposes that a child deprived of exposure to natural language would fail to acquire it if exposure commenced only after the end of the critical period. Because testing such a theory would be unethical, in that it would involve isolating a child from the rest of the world for several years, researchers have gathered evidence of the CPH from a few victims of . The most famous example is the case of (a pseudonym), who was deprived of language until the age of 13. Over the following years of rehabilitation, improvement in her ability to was noted, but during this time she did not develop the language ability common to other children. However, this case has been criticised as a firm example of the critical period in action, and data has not been gathered from Genie since the 1970s.
Lenneberg's Critical Period Hypothesis DOWNLOAD HERE
If language acquisition does not occur by puberty, some aspects of language can be learnt but full mastery cannot be achieved.” Lenneberg also stressed that in the case of bilingual individuals, the critical period is broken into phases....
Eric Lenneberg | Languages Alive
In his initial discovery of the “critical period hypothesis,” Lenneberg stated: “there are maturational constraints on the time a first language can be acquired.