imported>Nancy Sculerati MD |
|
| (18 intermediate revisions by 9 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| <!--:''This article is about a critical period in an organism's development. See also [[Critical Period (U.S. history)]].''-->
| | {{subpages}} |
| In general, a '''critical period''' is a limited time in which an event can occur, usually to result in some kind of transformation. A "critical period" in [[developmental psychology]] and [[developmental biology]] is a time in the early stages of an organism's life during which it displays a heightened sensitivity to certain environmental stimuli, and develops in particular ways due to experiences at this time. If the organism does not receive the appropriate stimulus during this "critical period", it may be difficult, or even impossible, to develop some functions later in life.
| | A '''critical period''', in [[biology]], [[psychology]] and many other fields, is a limited time in which some event can occur. Examples of this include the development of [[vision]], [[birdsong]] and [[language (general)|language]]. Studies involving depriving [[animal]]s of stimuli and cases of [[child abuse]] have been used to argue that without exposure to environmental 'triggers', the onset of traits or abilities such as these is affected or prevented. |
|
| |
|
| For example, the critical period for the development of a human child's [[binocular vision]] is thought to be between one and three years,{{ref|Almi}} and further critical periods have been identified for the development of [[hearing]] and the [[vestibular system]].{{ref|Moorman}} There are critical periods in childhood in which [[Imprinting (psychology)|imprinting]] can occur, such as when a [[greylag goose]] becomes attached to a parent figure within the first 36 hours after hatching. A young [[chaffinch]] must hear an adult singing before it sexually matures, or it will never properly learn the highly intricate song.{{ref|Thorpe}} These observations have led some to hypothesise a critical period for certain areas of human learning, particularly [[language acquisition]].
| | ==Language== |
| | {{main|critical period hypothesis}} |
| | The ''critical period hypothesis'' (CPH) in [[linguistics]] and [[language acquisition]] refers to 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 to acquire language in a linguistically rich environment, after which this is no longer possible due to changes in the [[brain]]. The hypothesis has been discussed in the context of both [[first language acquisition|first]] (FLA) and [[second language acquisition]] (SLA), and is particularly controversial in the latter. In FLA, it seeks to explain the apparent absence of language in individuals whose childhood exposure was very limited, and in SLA it is often invoked to explain variation in adults' performance in learning a second language. |
|
| |
|
| Experimental research into critical periods has involved depriving animals of stimuli at different stages of development. Other studies have looked at children deprived of certain experiences due to illness (such as temporary blindness), or social isolation (such as [[Feral child|feral children]]). Many of the studies investigating a critical period for language acquisition have focussed on [[deaf]] children of [[Hearing (person)|hearing]] parents.
| | The critical period hypothesis is associated with [[Wilder Penfield]], whose 1959 work with [[Lamar Roberts]], ''Speech and Brain Mechanisms'', explored the [[neuroscience]] of language, concluding that it was dominant in the left hemisphere of the brain. The work 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 ''tabula rasa'' view that children were born without any real [[nativism (psychology)|innate]] language ability.<ref>Penfield & Roberts (1959: 252; Dechert 1995: 67-94).</ref> Their recommendations for language schooling recommended starting early in order to avoid fixed effects. The hypothesis was developed by [[Eric Lenneberg]] in his 1967 ''Biological Foundations of Language'', 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 adults to [[fluency|fluently]] learn a second language. |
|
| |
|
| == Linguistics == | | ==Footnotes== |
| ===First language acquisition===
| | {{reflist|2}} |
| :''See also: [[Language acquisition#The Critical Period Hypothesis]]''
| |
| The Critical Period Hypothesis states that the first few years of life is the crucial time in which an individual can acquire a first language 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 [[grammar|grammatical systems]].
| |
| | |
| The evidence for such a period is limited, and support stems largely from theoretical arguments and analogies to other critical periods in biology such as visual development, but nonetheless is widely accepted. The nature of this phenomenon, however, has been one of the most fiercely debated issues in [[psycholinguistics]] and [[cognitive science]] in general for decades. Some writers have suggested a "sensitive" or "optimal" period rather than a critical one; others dispute the causes (physical maturation, cognitive factors). The duration of the period also varies greatly in different accounts. [[Steven Pinker]], in his book ''[[The Language Instinct]]'', states that “acquisition of a normal language is guaranteed for children up to the age of six, is steadily compromised from then until shortly after puberty, and is rare thereafter” (Pinker 1994, p. 293).
| |
| | |
| The Critical Period Hypothesis was first proposed by Montreal neurologist [[Wilder Penfield]] and co-author [[Lamar Roberts]] in a 1959 paper ''Speech and Brain Mechanisms'', and was popularised by [[Eric Lenneberg]] in 1967 with ''Biological Foundations of Language.'' Lenneberg proposed [[Lateralization of brain function|brain lateralisation]] at puberty as the mechanism that closes down the brain's ability to acquire language, though this has since been widely disputed. Other notable proponents of the Critical Period Hypothesis include [[Noam Chomsky]].
| |
| | |
| ===Second language acquisition===
| |
| :''See also: [[Second language acquisition#Summary of Critical Period Research to date]]''
| |
| The theory has often been extended to a critical period for [[second language acquisition]], although this is much less widely accepted. Certainly, older learners of a [[second language]] rarely achieve the native-like fluency that younger learners display, despite often progressing faster than children in the initial stages. [[David Singleton]] (1995) states that in learning a second language, "younger = better in the long run," but points out that there are many exceptions, noting that five percent of adult bilinguals master a second language even though they begin learning it when they are well into adulthood — long after any critical period has presumably come to a close.
| |
| | |
| While the window for learning a second language never completely closes, certain linguistic aspects appear to be more affected by the age of the learner than others. For example, adult second-language learners nearly always retain an immediately-identifiable foreign accent, including some who display perfect grammar (Oyama 1976). Some writers have suggested a younger critical age for learning phonology than for syntax. Singleton (1995) reports that there is no critical period for learning vocabulary in a second language. Robertson (2002) observed that factors other than age may be even more significant in successful second language learning, such as personal motivation, anxiety, input and output skills, settings and time commitment.
| |
| | |
| On reviewing the published material, Bialystok and Hakuta (1994) conclude that second-language learning is not necessarily subject to biological critical periods, but "on average, there is a continuous decline in ability [to learn] with age."
| |
|
| |
|
| ==See also== | | ==See also== |
| *[[Child development]] | | *[[Imprinting]] |
| *[[Universal grammar]] | | *[[Critical period hypothesis]] |
| | | *[[Language acquisition]] |
| ==External links==
| | *[[First language acquisition]] |
| * [http://www.ling.lancs.ac.uk/staff/florencia/bib/age.htm Bibiography of papers on critical periods in second language acquisition] | | *[[Second language acquisition]][[Category:Suggestion Bot Tag]] |
| | |
| ==References==
| |
| <small>Biology</small>
| |
| *{{note|Almi}} Almli, C. Robert and Stanley Finger. (1987). ''Neural insult and critical period concepts.'' In 'Sensitive Periods in Development: Interdisciplinary Perspectives', Marc H. Bornstein (ed.), 123–143. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. | |
| *{{note|Thorpe}} Thorpe, W. (1958). ''The learning of song patterns by birds, with special reference to the song of the Chaffinch, "Fringilla coelebs"''. Ibis 100:535-570.
| |
| *{{note|Moorman}} Moorman SJ; Cordova R; Davies SA. (2002). ''A critical period for functional vestibular development in zebrafish.'' Developmental Dynamics 223(2):285-91, Space Life Sciences Publications.
| |
| | |
| <small>Linguistics</small>
| |
| * Bialystok, Ellen, and Hakuta, Kenji. (1994). ''In Other Words.'' BasicBooks, A Division of HarperCollins Publishers, Inc.
| |
| * Bruer, John T. (1999). ''The Myth of the First Three Years.'' The Free Press, A Division of Simon and Schuster Inc.
| |
| * Johnson, J.S., & Newport, E.L. (1989). ''Critical period effects in second language learning: The influence of maturational state on the acquisition of English as a second language''. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 60-99.
| |
| * Lamendella, J.T. (1977). ''General principles of Neurofunctional organization and their manifestation in primary and non-primary language acquisition'', Language Learning, 27, 155-9 [Introduces the phrase "sensitive period"] | |
| * Lenneberg, E. H. (1967). ''Biological Foundations of Language.'' Wiley.
| |
| * Marshall, Brad. (April 16, 2000). ''Is there a 'child advantage' in learning foreign languages?'' Education Week. Vol. 19, number 22, pages 39, 41.
| |
| * Newport, E.L. (1990). ''Maturational constraints on language learning''. Cognitive Science, 14, 11-28.
| |
| * Oyama, S. (1976). ''A sensitive period for the acquisition of a nonnative phonological system.'' Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 5: 261-285.
| |
| * Penfield W & L Roberts. (1959). ''Speech and Brain Mechanisms.'' Princeton University Press. Princeton.
| |
| * Pinker, S. (1994). ''The Language Instinct.'' New York: Morrow.
| |
| * Robertson, P. (2002). ''The Critical Age Hypothesis'', The Asian EFL Journal (On-Line): http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/marcharticles_pr.php
| |
| * Singleton, David, and Lengyel, Zsolt. (1995). ''The Age Factor in Second Language Acquisition.'' Multilingual Matters Ltd. See also http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~ionin/SLAgroup/Ling527papers/Singleton%20Critical%20Periods%20iral.2005.43.4.269.pdf
| |
| *Zhao, A,H. & Morgan, C. (2005) "Consideration of Age in L2 Attainment - Children, Adolescents and Adults." The Asian EFL Journal Volume 6(4) http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/december_04_ahqz_cm.php
| |
| | |
| [[Category:Linguistics]]
| |
| [[Category:CZ live]] | |
A critical period, in biology, psychology and many other fields, is a limited time in which some event can occur. Examples of this include the development of vision, birdsong and language. Studies involving depriving animals of stimuli and cases of child abuse have been used to argue that without exposure to environmental 'triggers', the onset of traits or abilities such as these is affected or prevented.
Language
- For more information, see: critical period hypothesis.
The critical period hypothesis (CPH) in linguistics and language acquisition refers to 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 to acquire language in a linguistically rich environment, after which this is no longer possible due to changes in the brain. The hypothesis has been discussed in the context of both first (FLA) and second language acquisition (SLA), and is particularly controversial in the latter. In FLA, it seeks to explain the apparent absence of language in individuals whose childhood exposure was very limited, and in SLA it is often invoked to explain variation in adults' performance in learning a second language.
The critical period hypothesis is associated with Wilder Penfield, whose 1959 work with Lamar Roberts, Speech and Brain Mechanisms, explored the neuroscience of language, concluding that it was dominant in the left hemisphere of the brain. The work 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 tabula rasa view that children were born without any real innate language ability.[1] Their recommendations for language schooling recommended starting early in order to avoid fixed effects. The hypothesis was developed by Eric Lenneberg in his 1967 Biological Foundations of Language, 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 adults to fluently learn a second language.
- ↑ Penfield & Roberts (1959: 252; Dechert 1995: 67-94).
See also
