In our last article, we discussed principles and parameters as part of our innate universal grammar (UG). It was shown that we do not learn principles and parameters (they are something that we are born with.). Rather, when we are exposed to a particular language, we set the specific parameters applicable to that language and acquire that language.
It is also assumed that UG is facilitated by a mental capacity (referred to as Language Acquisition Device (LAD)) that we are born with. It is also assumed that there is a particular period in our lives when we get a chance to set the right parameters for a particular language to be acquired. This is known as the “critical period” for a language to be acquired. Today, we are going to discuss these notions such as LAD and “critical period”.
Language Acquisition Device (LAD)
Beginning from the 1960s, Chomsky claimed that there is a certain facility in our brain/mind that serves in the acquisition and production of a language. Thus, LAD refers to an innate mental facility that enables a child to acquire and produce a language that he/she is exposed to. One of the main arguments in favour of LAD is that given the nature of the limited input (i.e. stimuli) for language learning for an infant, if he/she is not born with such a facility in the brain/mind he/she would not be able to acquire a language within such a short period of time as three to four years. Thus, LAD is supposed to be the base for universal grammar (UG) with its principles and parameters.
A specific time window to acquire a first language
Beginning from thelate1950s, it has been widely assumed that the first few years in life are crucial for the acquisition of the first language by a person and this is known as the “Critical Period Hypothesis”. Even though there is no unanimous agreement with respect to the exact timeframe for the “critical period” to acquire a language, it is generally assumed that it ranges between early infancy and puberty. It is also claimed that the plasticity of the brain (i.e. neuroplasticity) during this period serves in the process of acquisition of a first language.
It has been found that if the acquisition of a first language does not happen during this critical period, a person is not able to acquire or learn a language. One case study that supports the critical period hypothesis is that of a child called Genie who was kept isolated from society and language as a result of child abuse. She was not exposed to language until discovered at the age of thirteen. Her case study supports the critical period hypothesis in such a way that seven years of language training did not help her learn the language.
Another case in point is that of Anna who is reported to have been kept out of human contact as a result of being an illegitimate child. She was discovered at the age of six and sent to what is called a county home where she was exposed to language used by the care giver and other inmates in the county home. It is reported that she hardly developed any language production skills.
However, there are cases where children deprived of language up to a significant amount of time have been able to relearn language. A well noted case is that of Isabelle. She is said to have been confined to a room with her deaf and mute mother and had no exposure to human natural language until she was six and a half years of age. Upon discovery, she was exposed to language used by the children in a ward in a hospital where she was treated. At the same time, she was given training in language. It is reported that with the exposure and training in language she learnt words and began to produce correct inflections and complex sentences. Another such well known case of recovering language is that of Victor, who was a feral child (i.e. a wild child). Victor was a child who lived in the wild among animals until he was found at the age of thirteen. He is said to have walked on all fours and possessed no human language skills. However, after training on language for over five years, Victor is said to have relearn some language.
A critical period to learn a second language
The idea behind Critical Period Hypothesis has been extended to argue for a critical period for second language acquisition (SLA). The idea is that young second language (L2) learners tend to acquire the language better than adult L2 learners. Even though it is more debatable than that assumed for first language acquisition, the critical period for SLA is said to range between 2 and 13 years of age.
It has been especially found out that young L2 learners perform better when it comes to pronunciation (i.e. near native like pronunciation) than adult L2 learners. However, when it comes to grammatical structures, it has been shown that there isn’t much of a difference between young and adult L2 learners with respect to what is assumed to be the critical period. The graph by Shiro Ojima illustrates the effects of the critical period for L2 acquisition.
In today’s article we discussed that in the tradition of generative grammar (i.e. Noam Chomsky, his colleagues and followers), it is claimed that there is a specific facility in our brain/mind called LAD for language acquisition and learning. It is also claimed that there is a specific time window for us to acquire/learn a first or a second language. However, whether such a device or time exist/s is still a matter of debate among linguists, and it is far from being over.
At the same time, much research into brain and language has proven that certain areas/parts of our brain are responsible for language functions. In our next article, we are discussing this in detail.
Email: [email protected]
(The writer is a Senior Lecturer, Department of English and Linguistics, University of Sri Jayewardenepura)
