Can a Morphological Feature of Dendritic Structure be Linked to Language Acquisition?

IF 0.6 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS Biolinguistics Pub Date : 2017-12-31 DOI:10.5964/bioling.9099
H. Sussman
{"title":"Can a Morphological Feature of Dendritic Structure be Linked to Language Acquisition?","authors":"H. Sussman","doi":"10.5964/bioling.9099","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Eric Lennenberg (1967) popularized the notion of a critical period for language acquisition, an ideal developmental time window, from approximately age two to puberty, beyond which achieving native-speaker like competence is greatly diminished. The critical period hypothesis (CPH) has been and continues to be a much discussed and controversial topic, particularly in the context of second language acquisition (for a review see Birdsong, in press). My contribution to this discussion is very limited and focused on a specific issue—that is, can an enhanced, developmentally-based feature, empirically documented within a neuron’s dendritic arborization, play a role in language acquisition? A reasonable expectation is that in a normal postnatal environment, a functional enrichment of neuronal circuitry interconnecting brain regions engaged in speech and language processing should parallel and underlie the emergence of a natural language in a child. From initial vocalic-like cries and squeals, to canonical and variegated babbling, to first words, to two word utterances, and culminating in the production of sentences, one would expect a concomitant maturation of the complex neural infrastructure mediating this genetically and experientially driven, but poorly understood, cognitive achievement. What may be unreasonable, however, is an expectation of linking neuroanatomical features of micro-level structure to cognitive function. Fifty years ago, Lennenberg cautioned against making such claims:","PeriodicalId":54041,"journal":{"name":"Biolinguistics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2017-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Biolinguistics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5964/bioling.9099","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Eric Lennenberg (1967) popularized the notion of a critical period for language acquisition, an ideal developmental time window, from approximately age two to puberty, beyond which achieving native-speaker like competence is greatly diminished. The critical period hypothesis (CPH) has been and continues to be a much discussed and controversial topic, particularly in the context of second language acquisition (for a review see Birdsong, in press). My contribution to this discussion is very limited and focused on a specific issue—that is, can an enhanced, developmentally-based feature, empirically documented within a neuron’s dendritic arborization, play a role in language acquisition? A reasonable expectation is that in a normal postnatal environment, a functional enrichment of neuronal circuitry interconnecting brain regions engaged in speech and language processing should parallel and underlie the emergence of a natural language in a child. From initial vocalic-like cries and squeals, to canonical and variegated babbling, to first words, to two word utterances, and culminating in the production of sentences, one would expect a concomitant maturation of the complex neural infrastructure mediating this genetically and experientially driven, but poorly understood, cognitive achievement. What may be unreasonable, however, is an expectation of linking neuroanatomical features of micro-level structure to cognitive function. Fifty years ago, Lennenberg cautioned against making such claims:
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
树枝状结构的形态特征能与语言习得联系起来吗?
Eric Lennenberg(1967)普及了语言习得关键期的概念,这是一个理想的发展时间窗口,从大约两岁到青春期,超过这个时期,获得像母语者一样的能力就会大大减少。关键时期假说(CPH)一直是并将继续是一个备受讨论和争议的话题,特别是在第二语言习得的背景下(回顾见Birdsong,出版)。我对这个讨论的贡献是非常有限的,并且集中在一个特定的问题上——那就是,一个增强的、基于发展的特征,在神经元的树突树突中被经验证明,在语言习得中起作用吗?一个合理的预期是,在正常的出生后环境中,连接大脑语音和语言处理区域的神经回路的功能丰富应该与儿童自然语言的出现并行并奠定基础。从最初的像声音一样的哭喊和尖叫,到规范的和杂音的咿呀学语,到第一个单词,到两个单词的话语,最后到句子的产生,人们会期望复杂的神经基础设施随之成熟,调解这种基因和经验驱动的,但鲜为人知的认知成就。然而,将微观结构的神经解剖学特征与认知功能联系起来的期望可能是不合理的。50年前,Lennenberg就告诫人们不要这样说:
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Biolinguistics
Biolinguistics LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS-
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
5
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Biolinguistics end-of-year notice 2023 Why large language models are poor theories of human linguistic cognition: A reply to Piantadosi Social evolution and commitment: Bridging the gap between formal linguistic theories and language evolution research A future without a past: Philosophical consequences of Merge Eademne sunt?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1