Logo
Logo
Log inSign up
Logo

Tools

AI Concept MapsAI Mind MapsAI Study NotesAI FlashcardsAI Quizzes

Resources

BlogTemplate

Info

PricingFAQTeam

info@algoreducation.com

Corso Castelfidardo 30A, Torino (TO), Italy

Algor Lab S.r.l. - Startup Innovativa - P.IVA IT12537010014

Privacy PolicyCookie PolicyTerms and Conditions

The Critical Period Hypothesis for Language Acquisition

The Critical Period Hypothesis (CPH) in language learning suggests an optimal timeframe for acquiring language with native-like proficiency, typically before puberty. This period is characterized by heightened neuroplasticity, making language acquisition more natural. The text delves into the differences between critical and sensitive periods, the origins of CPH, and case studies like Genie's that demonstrate the effects of missing the critical period. It also discusses the challenges and possibilities of learning a second language as an adult.

See more
Open map in editor

1

3

Open map in editor

Want to create maps from your material?

Insert your material in few seconds you will have your Algor Card with maps, summaries, flashcards and quizzes.

Try Algor

Learn with Algor Education flashcards

Click on each Card to learn more about the topic

1

CPH Optimal Timeframe

Click to check the answer

Early childhood to pre-puberty

2

CPH Brain Sensitivity

Click to check the answer

Neural circuits highly receptive to language during critical period

3

Post-Puberty Language Learning

Click to check the answer

Possible but more effortful, potentially less fluent

4

As people age, their brain's ______ decreases, making it harder to learn a ______ later in life.

Click to check the answer

plasticity new language

5

Definition of 'critical period'

Click to check the answer

A specific timeframe in development when certain skills must be acquired to fully develop them.

6

Definition of 'sensitive period'

Click to check the answer

An extended timeframe in development when learning is highly effective but not exclusive.

7

Language acquisition efficiency

Click to check the answer

More efficient during sensitive period than later stages, but not as natural as during critical period.

8

The ______ ______ hypothesis was significantly promoted by ______ ______ in ______ through his publication 'Biological Foundations of Language.'

Click to check the answer

critical period Eric Lenneberg 1967

9

Genie's age at discovery and language intervention

Click to check the answer

Found at 13, missed early language exposure; intervention was post-critical period.

10

Genie's linguistic competencies post-intervention

Click to check the answer

Limited grammar and language skills; did not reach age-level proficiency.

11

Impact of missing critical period on language development

Click to check the answer

Genie's case shows severe long-term deficits in language acquisition.

12

The ______ has implications for second language acquisition, indicating that children and adolescents may achieve fluency more easily than adults.

Click to check the answer

CPH

13

Critical Period Hypothesis - Key Proponent

Click to check the answer

Lenneberg advocated for the Critical Period Hypothesis, linking early childhood neuroplasticity to language proficiency.

14

Genie Case - Relevance to Language Acquisition

Click to check the answer

Genie's case provided empirical support for the Critical Period Hypothesis, showing difficulties in language learning post-critical period.

15

Neuroplasticity - Role in Language Learning

Click to check the answer

Early childhood neuroplasticity is crucial for achieving native-like language proficiency, as per the Critical Period Hypothesis.

Q&A

Here's a list of frequently asked questions on this topic

Similar Contents

Psychology

Altruism: A Complex Aspect of Human Nature

View document

Psychology

Noam Chomsky and his Contributions to Linguistics

View document

Psychology

Child Language Acquisition

View document

Psychology

Total Physical Response (TPR)

View document

Exploring the Critical Period Hypothesis in Language Learning

The Critical Period Hypothesis (CPH) posits that there is an optimal timeframe for acquiring language with native-like proficiency, typically starting from early childhood and ending before puberty. This hypothesis, grounded in linguistic and psychological research, suggests that during this critical period, the brain's neural circuits are especially sensitive to language input, facilitating effortless language acquisition. Post-puberty, language learning is still possible but often requires more effort and may result in less fluent outcomes.
Detailed human brain model bisected sagittally, showcasing cerebral cortex folds, hemispheric division, thalamus, and brainstem on a light background.

Neuroplasticity's Influence on Language Acquisition

Neuroplasticity, the brain's capacity to form new neural connections in response to learning and experience, is foundational during the critical period of language development. In early childhood, the brain exhibits a high degree of plasticity, which diminishes with age. This decline in plasticity is one reason why acquiring a new language in later years can be more challenging, as the brain becomes less adaptable to the linguistic demands of a new language.

Differentiating Critical and Sensitive Periods in Development

It is important to distinguish between 'critical periods' and 'sensitive periods' in developmental psychology. A critical period is a finite window during which certain abilities or skills must be acquired, or the learner may never fully develop them. In contrast, a sensitive period is a more extended timeframe when learning is still highly effective but not exclusively so. Language acquisition is more efficient during the sensitive period than at later stages, but it does not match the natural assimilation that occurs during the critical period.

The Origins of the Critical Period Hypothesis for Language

The critical period hypothesis for language acquisition was notably advanced by Eric Lenneberg in 1967 with his work "Biological Foundations of Language." Lenneberg's hypothesis was informed by empirical evidence, including the language development of children with hearing impairments, the recovery of language abilities following brain injuries in children versus adults, and cases of extreme social deprivation where language exposure was limited or absent during the critical period.

Genie: A Case Study in Critical Period Language Acquisition

The tragic case of Genie, a girl who was isolated and deprived of language stimulation until the age of 13, underscores the CPH. Despite subsequent language intervention, Genie never fully acquired the grammatical and linguistic competencies typical of her age group, highlighting the profound impact of missing the critical period on language development. Her case provides a stark example of the difficulties faced when language acquisition is not initiated during this sensitive developmental window.

Learning a Second Language After the Critical Period

The CPH has implications for second language learning as well. While children and adolescents can often achieve fluency in a second language, adults may struggle to reach the same level of proficiency, frequently retaining an accent and experiencing greater difficulty with grammar. This is attributed to the reduced neuroplasticity and neuromuscular flexibility in adulthood. Nevertheless, adult language learners can still become highly proficient, suggesting that motivation, exposure, and practice also significantly influence language learning outcomes.

Evaluating the Critical Period Hypothesis: Conclusions and Controversies

The critical period hypothesis offers a valuable perspective on the optimal timing for language acquisition, emphasizing the role of early childhood neuroplasticity in achieving native-like proficiency. While the hypothesis, as presented by Lenneberg and evidenced by cases like Genie's, has garnered support, it is not without contention. Critics argue that a range of factors, including the quality and quantity of language exposure, individual differences, and the learning environment, can also critically affect language learning success, regardless of age.