{"title":"重新认识第二语言习得关键期假说:对伦纳伯格语言表观成因研究的评价","authors":"Gunnar Norrman","doi":"10.1016/j.langsci.2024.101645","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The critical period hypothesis (CPH) as an explanation of age effects on language learning has been a perennial source of contention in the field of second language acquisition (SLA). Although this hypothesis – which suggests that adult language learning is constrained by biological or maturational changes in the brain – has been based on the work of Eric Lenneberg (i.e. <em>Biological Foundations of Language</em>, 1967), it does not reflect Lenneberg's original biological theory of language. In this paper, the CPH is examined in light of a comprehensive review of Lenneberg's work and related disciplines. By outlining Lenneberg's notion of epigenesis in language development, it is argued that the CPH interpretation of the critical period notion that has long skewed the debate over age effects in SLA must be re-evaluated, and that any reference to “Lenneberg's CPH” can – and should – be abandoned.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":51592,"journal":{"name":"Language Sciences","volume":"105 ","pages":"Article 101645"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0388000124000342/pdfft?md5=8ad208e49b5a7faa7c8e8a913d8d7e8d&pid=1-s2.0-S0388000124000342-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reconceptualizing the critical period hypothesis for second language acquisition: An appraisal of Lenneberg's work on the epigenesis of language\",\"authors\":\"Gunnar Norrman\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.langsci.2024.101645\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>The critical period hypothesis (CPH) as an explanation of age effects on language learning has been a perennial source of contention in the field of second language acquisition (SLA). Although this hypothesis – which suggests that adult language learning is constrained by biological or maturational changes in the brain – has been based on the work of Eric Lenneberg (i.e. <em>Biological Foundations of Language</em>, 1967), it does not reflect Lenneberg's original biological theory of language. In this paper, the CPH is examined in light of a comprehensive review of Lenneberg's work and related disciplines. By outlining Lenneberg's notion of epigenesis in language development, it is argued that the CPH interpretation of the critical period notion that has long skewed the debate over age effects in SLA must be re-evaluated, and that any reference to “Lenneberg's CPH” can – and should – be abandoned.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51592,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Language Sciences\",\"volume\":\"105 \",\"pages\":\"Article 101645\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0388000124000342/pdfft?md5=8ad208e49b5a7faa7c8e8a913d8d7e8d&pid=1-s2.0-S0388000124000342-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Language Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0388000124000342\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Language Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0388000124000342","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
Reconceptualizing the critical period hypothesis for second language acquisition: An appraisal of Lenneberg's work on the epigenesis of language
The critical period hypothesis (CPH) as an explanation of age effects on language learning has been a perennial source of contention in the field of second language acquisition (SLA). Although this hypothesis – which suggests that adult language learning is constrained by biological or maturational changes in the brain – has been based on the work of Eric Lenneberg (i.e. Biological Foundations of Language, 1967), it does not reflect Lenneberg's original biological theory of language. In this paper, the CPH is examined in light of a comprehensive review of Lenneberg's work and related disciplines. By outlining Lenneberg's notion of epigenesis in language development, it is argued that the CPH interpretation of the critical period notion that has long skewed the debate over age effects in SLA must be re-evaluated, and that any reference to “Lenneberg's CPH” can – and should – be abandoned.
期刊介绍:
Language Sciences is a forum for debate, conducted so as to be of interest to the widest possible audience, on conceptual and theoretical issues in the various branches of general linguistics. The journal is also concerned with bringing to linguists attention current thinking about language within disciplines other than linguistics itself; relevant contributions from anthropologists, philosophers, psychologists and sociologists, among others, will be warmly received. In addition, the Editor is particularly keen to encourage the submission of essays on topics in the history and philosophy of language studies, and review articles discussing the import of significant recent works on language and linguistics.