Lenneberg's Critical Period Hypothesis & The Case of Genie

The Critical Period Hypothesis states that the first few years of life constitute the time during which language develops readily and after which (sometime between age 5 and puberty) language acquisition is much more difficult, and ultimately less successful. CPH, developed by Eric Lennenberg, in 1967, seemed valid until the case of Genie. Genie at the age of 14, after isolation from the world, proved that a human, post-puberty, could re-code the world, and learn language.  Genie's case, however, captured the attention of so many renounced physiologist and linguist that worked on her case, including Chomsky. Because of Genies, persistence, and ability to form relationships, and gradual ability express her thoughts and emotions, in any verbal non-verbal manner, researchers such as J. Shirley and Dr. Kent, Genie's surrogate father, believed forming relationships, equals, language learning ability.

It make sense because once Genie could identify her feelings and show reaction to people and situations, linguist were able to teacher her simple words for her to apply to her thoughts. Genie's case, in my opinion, exhibits hows closely related a persons emotional state of being and human relationships impact language learning acquisition, rather than negates the CPH theory. I would like to argue partial validity in Lenenberg's theory, because he suggests a correlation in language learning and the concurrence of critical periods for the auditory, visual, and vestibular systems, which I believe to be true. We have discussed, I know Anthony points this out often, a back and forth, (chicken or the egg) idea of language acquisition. Different variables of learning must be considered when assessing a person's language acquisition, and thought and language is requires constant building and connection of ideas and meaning.

I do not agree, after studying Genie's case, that language learning cannot be achieved post-puberty, but I do think the critical period age is when language acquisition occurs most rapidly. There is no doubt in my mind, that Genie suffered major setbacks in her developmental, in her isolation. I think it is essential for children to acquire their first language grammar structure from birth to set them up for success for future cognitive learning and communication skills.  Teachers create second language curriculums in a way that students can relate vocab and structure to their first language, again back and forth, compare and contrast, of language. That is why I would advocate post-pubesent ages to pursue a second language. I would advise your friend's 13 year old to take Spanish as a second language, because teacher's are trained to educate post-pubesenct ages groups second language. It has been successful in our educational system for years and years, depending on student willingness to learn. I think the the Critical period age would allow for a more rapid second language cognition, but I think once first metalinguistic concepts are established, there is still so much language learning opportunity for students of any age.

Sorry Krashen, Thank you Long

         Dr. Stephen Krashen’s Input Hypothesis Theory argues that in second language acquisition, educators must emphasis input comprehension and downplay output communication. “As long as our students are exposed to sufficient linguistic input on topics of their interest and are encouraged to interact with each other to use the language for communication, speaking fluency will emerge,” Krashen. However, in my experience, academic background, and interpretation of life, I see his argument on “no output,” as insufficient in testability and contradictory in theory.

         The quote above, summarizes the basic idea of Krashen’s Input Hypothesis Theory, which is that students do not need to practice output to acquire second language, rather observation and natural order of input comprehension will naturally occur, as in first language development. I agree with Krashen’s five principles of input, and see validity in how he approaches teaching through a psychological perception of student learning and teacher discretion, but I have yet to see evidence that interaction, or, output not being essential in student second language progression. In fact, in the quote referenced, I see that Krashen is acknowledging social interactions, output, is part of SLA process.

         As we have discussed in this module, there are many variables that should be considered when teaching students a new language, which Krashen would agree. It takes more than conscious and traditional learning method to be successful. I appreciate Krashen finding more peripheral, subconscious, means to language acquisition. I think Krashen’s main concern in downplaying output, is that, making students speak increases affective filter, which creates anxiety for students and interferes with learning. The affective filter, is a great example of identifying fears and pressures students may experience when in the classroom, or feel as if they must preform to succeed. However, I agree with Dr. Michael Long, in that students will have to experience social interaction, outside of the classroom. I see this as being just as intimidating, if a student is not practicing in a safe, monitored language-learning environment. If a student endures months of not speaking, due to teacher pressure, what would that mean for them when they are eventually expected to communicate socially or professionally outside of the classroom?

         In my experience, I have never witnessed a language class where “silent periods,” method is practiced. I also know from my own experience, that it would be very difficult for me to use a language socially, after month of observation and no practice. I would not expect my students to just catch on. Honestly, I believe that would set them up for failure.

         I do agree that a student’s educational drive and willingness to learn will positively effect their SLA. I think it is unrealistic to model an infant/child first language development for adults, or any age, past the formative languages years. Students who are consciously aware of what it means to learn and willing to comprehend information will feel more motivation and progress through participation and interaction. Age is a very important variable to consider in SLA. Student past the age of five are able to understand experiences, culture, relationships, and how the world works. In allowing interaction, monitoring, or editing of communication through two-way conversation, students will benefit in their SLA progress. Through this monitoring system, which Krashen advocates, students can create meaning-making, reasoning, and understanding through pictures, movies, or anything that they can relate too. That is why I think it is contradictory for Krashen to dismiss output.

         Furthermore, I work at a pre-school, I see three year olds who rarely speak, usually students who have older siblings speak for them. I have students at age three who communicate very fluently. I have yet to see a kid turn age three and begin conversing flawlessly. I do not even think the exercise question applies to this subject material of Input Hypothesis, because cases like emergence of language after long observation periods, only applies to first language acquisition. In second language acquisition, I will never assume that pure reading and writing is sufficient enough to account for total second language success, sorry Krashen, thank you Long.

Early Childhood Language: Interesting!

 

Host Philip Zimbardo takes us through the stages of human language development, from age zero to age five. This video gives insight into psycholinguistic studies of language development, through innate LAD (language acquisition device), social interactions, universal stages/processes, and rules of grammar and syntax.
         The first stage of human language development, as described by Professor Gleason of Boston University, is decoding. She refers to Chompsky’s LAD theory, that human’s are biologically prepared for language development, which is an important idea to reference throughout this essay. As babies, voices and faces activate language acquisition. Babies prefer human voices and make associations to caregivers. This association and response is the natural and innate behavior of developing babies.
         Parent’s nurture is essential in aiding language development. Caregivers and adults speak slower, enunciate words, repeat, and change their tone to help babies decode. Baby sound developments, alternations and coordination, became known as a “universal process.” In the video developmental stages are similar in any culture. Babies at the earliest stage express their needs through cries, which generates response from parents. The next stage is cooing and “babytalk,” that begins a new range of adult responses. These stages initiate “mother-ease,” recognition of mother and innate response of parent to child.
         Zimbardo explains one word stage, versus,  two word stage. “Hi” and “bye,” are part of first word stage process, followed by second stage developments, which shows a relationship between a word and a child’s desire, demand, question, modification. Ex. “Joey Truck.” This is followed by effects and event words like “more,” and “again.” Dr. Slobin, of University of California at Berkeley, states that after researching native language development of cultures around the world, he found that all two year olds are applying grammar structure to their language. He uses English as example. He states that English is a strict language because of this, toddlers follow pattern of action and object, such as “more milk.” Interestingly enough, he says, when toddlers are incorrectly using words like “broked” and “falled,” into regular sentences, they have broken a pattern to start putting together new form, such as past tense verbiage. Thus, incorrect grammar is progress.
         Learning the rules and syntax of language is shaped by social exposure to conversation imitations. Children begin imitating their parents by using proper conversation techniques, such as “please” and “thank you.” There is also the practice of open conversation, taking turns, and ending conversation, for example, “hello,” and “goodbye,” learned throughout engagement, tones, intuition, and repetition.
         Nurture and nature in conjunction, immerse and expose child to language. The evolution and development of language is essential to our relationships and advancements as a species, that is why it is so mind-blowing how advanced human’s babies are. 

Applied Lingustics- Krashen Principles v. Long; Input & Output Hypothesis

The 5 principles of Krashen’s Input Hypothesis are:

1. Acquisition versus learning. Acquisition of second language should be as natural and subconscious as the first language acquisition. Krashen suggests teachers create a “silent period,” where students only read and listen, as an infant would, in observing their first language. Learning is too deliberate and only effective if it mirrors a child’s first language development.
2. Monitoring use of language, grammar, and content. Learners’ of a second language ability to edit, identify, and correct grammar and context use. Teachers and students generally strive to obtain optimal monitoring, which creates thought timing, correct grammar, and content use in balance. Not spending too much time considering one aspect of second language use prevents over and under use of communication output.
3. Natural order and “zero option.” This means focusing on form is not useful to second language acquisition. Mistakes are okay, and allow a pre-determined biological sequence of language comprehension to occur. Zero option is allowing learning to acquire language naturally.
4. Input, or “I + 1.” Espousing learner to linguistic input that matches and exceeds comprehension by a little more than the learner understands, furthers language acquisition progress. Ex: Teachers should use pictures, mimes, and a variety of self-evident queues to modify lesson to meet student comprehension. Much like a caregiver modifies speech to communicate with child.
5. Affective filter levels effects comprehension input. Anxiety of low confidence are too examples of affective filters that negatively impact a learner’s ability to seek comprehensive input. Low comprehension input and affective filter cause low second language acquisition.

Criticisms of Krashen’s Input hypothesis are as follows:

1. They are too simplistic
2. Key concepts are poorly defined
3. Hypothesis is impossible to test

Krashen’s does not acknowledge, and has no testable way to indicate pre-existing levels of learners comprehension input because there are so many variables to consider. Krashen should have been more specific when pointing out key concepts such as the “I+one,” researchers want to know more specifically what “I” and “one” are[is]? Most criticisms center on Krashen’s lack of testability, and ability to falsify/verify his 5 key principles.


Long Interaction-ism Hypothesis

Professor Micheal Long's Interaction Hypothesis states that learners play an active role in second language acquisition through comprehension input and negotiation of meaning. Through social interaction a speaker is able to test and modify their comprehension input and output. Conversation act as a medium and through the social communication, learners make adjustments in speech to meet the more competent speaker's speech. Thus, Long argues that second language acquisition is occurring inside, as well as, outside the classroom, through social constructs.
Comparatively, Krashen's theory does not credit output for SLA. He advocates "silent periods," and believes "pushing" students to speak, raises affective filter, which creates anxiety for student. Similarly, both theories agree that learning is a conscious process and that second language acquisitions idea should be taken into account when evaluating student comprehension. Long worked closely with Krashen, and branched off to customize a theory of his own. I believe Long accredits Krashen's work, but found validity in social interaction in furthering SLA.